THE 
 
 A - 
 /v 
 
 / « ^ 
 
 "^ Tl !« 
 
 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL 
 
 \ 
 
 PAPERS 
 
 OF 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER, 
 
 mtiUe SiZtvztKts ot State. 
 
 t J 
 
 « • < 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 82 CLIFF STREET. 
 
 184 8. 
 
■lA/SL 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand 
 eight hundred and forty-eight, by 
 
 Harper & Brothers, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of tlie Southern District 
 of New York. 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The condition of affairs in the United States, on the acces- 
 sion of President Harrison to office in the spring of 1841, was 
 difficult and critical, especially as far as the foreign relations 
 of the country were concerned. Ancient and modern contro- 
 versies with England existed, which seemed to defy adjust- 
 ment. The great question of the northeastern boundary had 
 been the subject of negotiation almost ever since the peace of 
 1783. Every effort to settle it had but increased the difficulties 
 with which it was beset, by exhausting the expedients of di- 
 plomacy. The Oregon question was rapidly assuming a formi- 
 dable aspect, as emigrants begaji to move into the country in 
 dispute. Not less serious was the state of affairs on the south- 
 western frontier, where,, although a collision with Mexico might 
 not in itself be an event to be viewed with great anxiety, it 
 was a matter of course, as things then stood, that it would 
 have brought a war with Great Britain in its train. 
 
 To the uneasiness necessarily growing out of these boundary 
 questions, no little bitterness was "Welded by more recent occur- 
 rences. The interruption of our vessels on the coast of Africa 
 was a frequently-recurring source of irritation. Great cause 
 of complaint was sometimes given by boarding officers, acting 
 on frivolous pretenses or in a vexatious manner. At other 
 times the public feeling in the United States was excited by 
 the exaggerations and misstatements of unworthy American 
 citizens, abusing the flag of the country to cover a detestable 
 traffic which is made a capital felony by its laws. The affair 
 of the " Caroline," followed by the arrest of M'Leod, created a 
 degree of discontent on both sides, which discussion had done 
 nothing to remove, but much to exasperate. A crisis had arisen, 
 which the minister of the United States in London (Mr. Steven- 
 son) deemed so serious, as to make it his duty to communicate 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tion of exploration and arbitration, shows of itself that neither 
 party had any real hope of actually settling the controversy, 
 but that both were willing to unite in a decent pretext for pro- 
 crastination. The report of Mr. Featherstonhaugh, errone- 
 ously believed, in England, to rest upon the results of actual ex- 
 ploration, had been sanctioned by the ministry, and seemed to 
 extinguish the last hope that England would agree to any terms 
 of settlement which the United States would deem reasonable. 
 The danger of collision on the frontier became daily more im- 
 minent, and troops to the amount of seventeen regiments had 
 been poured into the British provinces. The arrest of M'Leod, 
 as we have already observed, had brought matters to a point 
 at which the public sensibility of England would not have al- 
 lowed a minister to blink the question. Lord Palmerston is 
 known to have written to Mr. Fox, that the arrest of M'Leod, 
 under the authority of the State of New York, was universally 
 regarded in England as a direct affront to the British govern- 
 ment, and that such was the excitement caused by it that, had 
 M'Leod been condemned and executed, it would not have been 
 in the power either of ministers or opposition, or the leading 
 men of both parties, to prevent immediate war. At the same 
 time, Lord Palmerston was urging France into a co-operation 
 with the four other leading powers of Europe in the adoption 
 of a policy, by the negotiation of the quintuple treaty, which 
 would have left the United States in a position of dangerous 
 insulation on the subject of the great maritime question of the 
 day. 
 
 At this juncture a change of administration occurred in En- 
 gland, subsequent but by a few months only to that which took 
 place in the government of the United States. Lord Mel- 
 bourne's government gave way to that of Sir Robert Peel in 
 the summer of 1841 ; it remained to be seen with what influ- 
 ence on the relations of the two countries. Some circumstan- 
 ces occurred to put at risk the beneficial tendency toward an 
 accommodation, which might naturally be hoped for from a 
 change of administration nearly simultaneous on both sides of 
 the water. A note of a very uncompromising character, on 
 the subject of the search of American vessels on the coast of 
 Africa, had been addressed to Mr. Stevenson by Lord Palmer- 
 ston on the 27th of August, 1841, a day only before the close 
 
INTRODUCTION. VH 
 
 of Lord Melbourne's ministry, to which Mr. Stevenson replied 
 in the same strain. The answer of Lord Aberdeen, who had 
 succeeded Lord Palmerston as Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs, bears date 10th of October, 1841, and an elaborate re- 
 joinder was returned by Mr. Stevenson on the very day of 
 his departure from London. Lord Aberdeen's reply to this 
 note, addressed to Mr. Everett, was dated on the 20th of De- 
 cember, the day on which the quintuple treaty was signed at 
 London by the representatives of the five powers, and it con- 
 tained an announcement of that fact. 
 
 Happily, however, affairs were already taking a turn auspi- 
 cious of better results. From his first entrance on office as 
 Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, long familiar with the per- 
 plexed history of the negotiation relative to the boundary, had 
 perceived the necessity of taking a " new departure." The 
 negotiation had broken down under its own weight. It was 
 like one of those lawsuits which, to the opprobrium of tribu- 
 nals, descend from age to age : a disease of the body politic 
 not merely chronic, but hereditary. Early in the summer of 
 1841, Mr. Webster had intimated to Mr. Fox, the British min- 
 ister at Washington, that the American government was pre- 
 pared to consider, and, if practicable, adopt, a conventional line 
 as the only mode of cutting the Gordian knot of the contro- 
 versy. This overture was, of course, conveyed to London. 
 Though not leading to any result on the part of the ministry 
 just going out of office, it was embraced by their successors in 
 the same wise and conciliatory spirit in which it had been 
 made. On the 26th of December, 1841, a note was addressed 
 by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, inviting him to an interview 
 for the following day, on which occasion he communicated the 
 purpose of the government to send a special mission to the 
 United States, Lord Ashburton being the person selected as 
 minister, and furnished with full powers to settle ever) ques- 
 tion in controversy. 
 
 This step on the part of the British government was as bold 
 as it was wise. It met the difficulty in the face. It justly as- 
 sumed the existence of a corresponding spirit of conciliation 
 on the part of the United States, and of a desire to bring mat- 
 ters to a practical result. It was bold, because it was the last 
 expedient for an amicable adjustment, and because if it should 
 
Vlll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fail, its failure must necessarily lead to very serious and imme- 
 diate consequences. 
 
 In his choice of a minister, Lord Aberdeen was not less for- 
 tunate than he had been wise in proposing the measure. It 
 was a decided advantage that a diplomatist by profession was 
 not selected. Lord Ashburton was above the reach of the mo- 
 tives which influence politicians of an ordinary stamp, and un- 
 encumbered by the habits of routine which belong to men reg- 
 ularly trained in a career. He possessed a weight of charac- 
 ter at home which made him independent of the vulgar resorts 
 of popularity. He was animated by a kindly feeling, and bound 
 by kindly associations with this country. There was certainly 
 no public man in England who united in an equal degree the 
 confidence of his own government and country with those 
 claims to the good-will of the opposite party, which were scarce- 
 ly less essential to success. It may not be improper to add, 
 that Mr. Webster had passed some months in England in 1839, 
 had been received with great distinction and kindness by prom- 
 inent men of all parties, and that Lord Ashburton, among oth- 
 ers, had made his acquaintance. He knew, therefore, that his 
 immediate intercourse with the American government would 
 not be through an entire stranger, and was no doubt in some 
 measure decided to accept the mission, by his reliance on the 
 upright and honorable character of the American secretary. 
 
 With the appointment of Lord Ashburton, the discussion of 
 the main questions in controversy between the two countries, 
 as far as it had been carried on in London, was transferred to 
 Washington. But as an earnest of the conciliatory spirit which 
 bore sway in the British councils, Lord Aberdeen had announc- 
 ed to Mr. Everett, in the interval which elapsed between Lord 
 Ashburton's appointment and his arrival at his place of destina- 
 tion, that the queen's government admitted the wrong done by 
 the detention of the " Tigris" and " Seamew" in the African wa- 
 ters, and was prepared to indemnify their owners for the losses 
 sustained. 
 
 Notwithstanding the favorable circumstances under which 
 the mission of Lord Ashburton was instituted, the great diffi- 
 culties to be overcome were not long in being felt. The points 
 in dispute in reference to the boundary had for years been the 
 subject of discussion, more or less, throughout the country, but 
 
INTRODUCTION. IX 
 
 especially in Massachusetts and Maine (the states having an 
 immediate territorial interest in its decision), and, above all, in 
 the last-named state. Parties, differing on all other great ques- 
 tions, emulated each other in the zeal with v^^hich they asserted 
 the American side of this dispute. So strong and unanimous 
 was the feeling, that when the award of the King of the Neth- 
 erlands arrived, the firm purpose of General Jackson to ac- 
 cept it was subdued. The writer of these pages was informed 
 by the late Mr. Forsyth, while Secretary of State, that when 
 the award reached this country, General Jackson regarded it 
 as definitive, and was disposed, without consulting the Senate, 
 to issue his proclamation announcing it as such ; and that he 
 was driven from this purpose by the representations of his 
 friends in Maine, that such a course would cost them the state ; 
 and he was accustomed to add, in reference to the inconven- 
 iences caused by the rejection of the award, and the still more 
 serious evils to be anticipated, that " it was somewhat singu- 
 lar, that the only occasion of importance in his life in which he 
 had allowed himself to be overruled by his friends, was one of 
 all others in which he ought to have adhered to his own opin- 
 ions." 
 
 The following pages show that the first step taken by Mr. 
 Webstez', after receiving the directions of the President in ref- 
 erence to the negotiation, was to invite the co-operation of Mas- 
 sachusetts and Maine, the territory in dispute being the prop- 
 erty of the two states, and under the jurisdiction of the latter. 
 The extent of the treaty-making power of the United States, 
 in a matter of such delicacy as the cession of territory claimed 
 by a state to be within its limits, belongs to the more difficult 
 class of constitutional doctrines. We have seen both the theo- 
 ry and practice of General Jackson on this point. The admin- 
 istration of Mr. Tyler took for granted that the full consent of 
 Massachusetts and Maine was necessary to any adjustment of 
 this great dispute on the principle of mutual cession and equiv- 
 alents, or any other principle than that of the ascertainment of 
 the true original line of boundary by agreement, mutual com- 
 mission, or arbitration. Communications were accordingly ad- 
 dressed to the governors of the two states. Massachusetts 
 had anticipated the necessity of the measure, and made pro- 
 vision for the appointment of commissioners. The Legislature 
 
X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of Maine was promptly convened for the same purpose by the 
 late Governor Fairfield. Four parties were thus in presence 
 at Washington for the management of the negotiation : the 
 United States and Great Britain, Massachusetts and Maine. 
 Recollecting that the question to be settled was one which had 
 defied all the arts of diplomacy for half a century, it seemed to 
 a distant, and especially a European observer, as if the last ex- 
 periment, exceeding every former step in its necessary com- 
 plication, was destined to a failure proportionably signal and 
 ignominious. The writer of these remarks was in a condition 
 to know that the course pursued by the American secretary, in 
 making the result of the negotiation relative to the boundary 
 contingent upon the approval of the state commissioners, was 
 regarded in Europe as decidedly ominous of its failure. 
 
 It undoubtedly required a high degree of political courage 
 thus to put the absolute control of the subject, to a certain ex- 
 tent, out of the hands of the national government ; but it was 
 a courage fully warranted by the event. It is now evident 
 that this mode of procedure was the only one which could have 
 been adopted with any hope of success. Though complicated 
 in appearance, it was in reality the simplest mode in which the 
 co-operation of the states could have been secured. The com- 
 missions were, upon the whole, happily constituted ; they were 
 framed in each state without reference to party views. By 
 their presence in Washington, it was in the power of the Sec- 
 retary of State to avail himself, at every difficult conjuncture, 
 of their counsel. Limited in number, they yet represented the 
 public opinion of the two states, as fully as it could have been 
 done by the entire body of their Legislatures ; while it is quite 
 evident that any attempt to refer to large deliberative bodies at 
 home the discussion of the separate points which arose in the 
 negotiation, would have been physically impossible and polit- 
 ically absurd. In looking back, after the lapse of a few years, 
 at the correspondence between the commissioners and the Sec- 
 retary of State, as it appears in the present volume, it must be 
 admitted that there are occasionally, on the part of the former, 
 a tone and spirit which we might wish to qualify, and which 
 were not calculated at the time to advance the negotiations. It 
 is always easy to make trouble ; true statesmanship seeks, with- 
 out compromise of principle, to save trouble, and by honorable 
 
INTRODUCTION. XI 
 
 means to attain great ends. But it must, on the whole, be al- 
 lowed that the concurrence of the states was yielded by their 
 representatives as readily as could be expected under the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, and great credit is due to several of 
 the gentlemen on the commissions for this result. They consist- 
 ed, on the part of Maine, of Messrs. Edward Kavanagh, Ed- 
 ward Kent, William P. Preble, and John Otis ; and on the 
 part of Massachusetts, of Messrs. Abbott Lawrence, John 
 Mills, and Charles Allen. 
 
 While we name with honor the gentlemen forming the com- 
 missions, a tribute of respect is also due to the patriotism of 
 the states immediately concerned, and especially of Maine. 
 To devolve on any individuals, however high in public regard, 
 a power of transferring, without ratification or appeal, a por- 
 tion of the territory of the state for such considerations as those 
 individuals might judge to be adequate, was a measure to be 
 expected only in a case of clear necessity and high confidence. 
 Mr. Webster is known to have regarded this with the utmost 
 concern and anxiety as the turning-point of the whole attempt. 
 His letter to Governor Fairfield states the case with equal 
 strength and fairness, and puts in striking contrast the course 
 there recommended, with that of proceeding to agree to anoth- 
 er arbitration, as had been offered by the preceding adminis- 
 tration, and assented to by England. The fate of the negotia- 
 tion might be considered as involved in the success of this ap- 
 peal to the chief magistrate of Maine, and through him to his 
 constituents. It is said that when Mr. Webster heard that the 
 Legislature of Maine had adopted the resolutions for the com- 
 mission, he went to President Tyler and said, with evident sat- 
 isfaction and some animation, " The crisis is past." 
 
 A considerable portion, though not the whole, of the official 
 correspondence between the Secretary of State and the other 
 parties to the negotiation is contained in the following pages. 
 The documents published of course exhibit full proof of the 
 ability with which the argument was conducted. They prob- 
 ably furnish but an inadequate specimen of the judgment, tact, 
 and moral power required to conduct such a negotiation to a 
 successful result. National, state, and individual susceptibili- 
 ties were to be respected and soothed ; adverse interests, real 
 or imaginary, to be consulted ; the ordeal of the Senate to be 
 
XU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 passed through after every other difficulty had been over- 
 come, and all this in an atmosphere as little favorable to such 
 an operation as can be imagined. What neither Mr. Monroe, 
 in the " era of good feelings," nor the ability and experience 
 of Messrs. Adams, Clay, and Gallatin, nor General Jackson's 
 overwhelming popularity had been able to bring about, w^as 
 effected under the administration of Mr. Tyler, though that ad- 
 ministration seemed already crumbling to pieces for want of 
 harmony between some of the members and the head, and be- 
 tween that head and the party which had brought him into 
 power. No higher tribute can be paid to the ability and tem- 
 per which were brought to the work. 
 
 It was, however, in truth, an adjustment equally honorable 
 and advantageous to all parties. There is not an individual 
 of common sense or common conscience in Maine or Massa- 
 chusetts, in the United States or Great Britain, who would 
 now wish it disturbed. It took from Maine a tract of land 
 northwest of the St. John's, which the writer certainly believes 
 belonged to her under the treaty of 1783. But it is not enough 
 that we think ourselves right : the other party thinks the same ; 
 and when there is no common tribunal which both acknowl- 
 edge, there must be compromise. The tract of land in ques- 
 tion, for any purpose of cultivation or settlement, was without 
 value ; and had it been otherwise, it would not have been worth 
 the cost of a naval armament or one military expedition, to 
 say nothing of the abomination of shedding blood on such an 
 issue. But the disputed title to this worthless tract of morass, 
 heath, and rock, covered with snow or fog throughout the great- 
 er part of the year, was not ceded gratuitously. We obtained 
 the navigation of the St. John's, the natural outlet of the whole 
 country, without which the territory watered by it would have 
 been of comparatively little value ; we obtained a good nat- 
 ural boundary as far as the course of the river was followed ; 
 and we established the line which we claimed at the head of 
 the Connecticut, on Lake Champlain, and on the upper lakes : 
 territorial objects of considerable interest. Great Britain had 
 equal reason to be satisfied with the result. For her the teri'i- 
 tory northwest of the St. John's, worthless to us, had a geo- 
 graphical and political value ; it gave her a convenient connec- 
 tion between her two provinces, which was all she desired. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XIll 
 
 Both sides gained the only object which really was of import- 
 ance to either, a settlement by creditable means of a weari- 
 some national controversy ; an honorable escape from the 
 scourge and curse of war. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the subject, we may with proprie- 
 ty observe, that both governments appear to have been fortu- 
 nate in the constitution of the joint commission to survey, run, 
 and mark the long line of boundary. Mr. Albert Smith, of 
 Maine, was appointed commissioner on the part of the United 
 States, with Major James D. Graham, of the United States To- 
 pographical Engineers, as head of his scientific corps, and Mr. 
 Edward Webster* as his secretary. On the part of Great 
 Britain, Lieutenant Colonel J. B. B. Estcourt, of her majesty's 
 service, was appointed commissioner, with Captain W. H. Rob- 
 nson. Royal Engineers, as principal astronomer, and J. Scott, 
 Esq., as secretary. Other professional gentlemen were also 
 employed on both sides. Great harmony characterized all the 
 proceedings and results of the commission. The lines were 
 lecurately run, and that part of them not designated by rivers 
 narked all the way by substantial cast-iron monuments, with 
 suitable inscriptions, at every mile, and at most of the princt- 
 ja\ angles ; and wherever the lines extended through forests, 
 ;he trees were cut down and cleared to the width of thirty 
 'eet. AH the islands in the St. John's were also designated 
 tvith iron monuments, with inscriptions thereon, indicating the 
 government to which they belonged ; and upon that and all 
 )ther streams forming portions of the boundary, monuments 
 A'eve erected at the junction of every branch with the main 
 river. 
 
 But it is time to advert to the other great and difficult ques- 
 ;ions included in this adjustment. The extradition of fugitives 
 irom justice is regarded by Grotius and other respectable au- 
 :horities as the duty of states, by the law of nations. Other 
 
 * In the interval between the writing and printing of this introduction, intelli- 
 gence was received from the army near Mexico of the decease of this promising 
 md lamented young gentleman (at the time of his decease a major in the Mas- 
 sachusetts regiment), the younger son of Mr. Webster. In the same short inter- 
 nal, two other persons mentioned, viz.. President Adams and Mr. Wheaton, have 
 jeen also called away, to say nothing of the tremendous revolution, by which 
 ;he monarchy of France has been overturned and the king and his minister (also 
 lUuded to in the following pages) driven from the country. 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 authorities reject this doctrine ;* and if it be the law of nations, 
 it requires for its execution so much administrative machinery 
 as to be of no practical value without treaty stipulations. The 
 treaty of 1794 with Great Britain (Jay's treaty) made provision 
 for a mutual extradition of fugitives, in cases of murder and 
 forgery ; and the great case of Jonathan Robbins, immortalized 
 by the argument of Chief-justice Marshall in defense of his sur- 
 render, gave a political notoriety to that feature of the treaty 
 not favorable to its renewal in subsequent negotiations. The 
 treaty stipulation expired by its own limitation in 1806. Be- 
 sides the convenience of such an understanding on the part of 
 the two great commercial countries, between which language, 
 appearance, and manners render mutual escape so easy, the 
 condition of the frontier of the United States and Canada was 
 such as to make this provision all but necessary for the preser- 
 vation of the peace of the two countries. An extensive secret 
 organization existed in the border states, the object of which 
 was, under the delusive name of " sympathy," to foment and 
 aid rebellion in the British provinces. Although an agreement 
 for mutual extradition of necessity left untouched a great deal 
 of political agitation unfriendly to border peace, murder and 
 arson were, of course, within its provisions. It appears from 
 the testimony of the parties best informed on the subject, that 
 the happiest consequences flowed from this article of the Treaty 
 of Washington. We heard no more of border forays, " Hunt- 
 ers' lodges," " associations for the liberty of Canada," or vio- 
 lences offered or retaliated across the line. The mild but cer- 
 tain influence of law imposed a restraint, which even costly 
 and formidable military means had not been found entirely ad- 
 equate to produce. 
 
 Some odium was attempted to be raised against this article 
 of the treaty, from the circumstance that a female who had fled 
 from Scotland, charged with the murder of her husband, was 
 arrested, sent home for trial, and found by the jury " not 
 guilty." There was some inaccuracy in this statement of the 
 facts. The verdict of the jury, according to the forms of the 
 Scottish law, was "not proven," which, though it operates as 
 an acquittal, leaves an unremoved suspicion of guilt. But if 
 
 * The authorities are given in Story's Commentaries, vol. iii., p. 675, C76 ; Co»- 
 fiict of Laws, p. 520, 522 ; and iu Rentes Commentaries, vol. i., p. 36, 37. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 the case had been otherwise, and the acquittal plenary, what 
 argument does it furnish against the extradition clause of the 
 treaty ? No one can doubt that there was a prima facie case 
 for arrest and trial. Such was the judgment of the magistrates 
 both of Scotland and the United States. Such was the judg- 
 ment of the conscience of the party accused when she fled her 
 country. The United States have no interest in screening from 
 trial parties legally charged with high crimes in England. En- 
 gland has as little interest in affording an asylum to fugitives 
 legally charged with felonies in America. If the female in 
 question was rightfully discharged, it proves not that persons 
 suspected of murder ought to escape untried from justice (noth- 
 ing can prove such an absurdity), but that the tribunals of the 
 two countries may be safely trusted to administer criminal jus- 
 tice toward their respective subjects and citizens. 
 
 Before leaving this topic, it may be observed that the doc- 
 trine and practice of the United States, in reference to the ex- 
 ecution of treaty stipulations, are decidedly in advance of those 
 of England. In future compacts with that government, pro- 
 vision ought to be made to place the parties on an equal foot- 
 ing in this respect. By the Constitution of the United States, 
 a treaty is a part of the law of the land, and as such all con- 
 cerned are bound to obey it, and within their competence to 
 execute it. If it contain provisions which can not be carried 
 into effect without legislative provision — as, for instance, an 
 appropriation — Congress, though not compellable to pass the 
 law, is bound by a high moral and political obligation to do 
 so ; and, in point of fact, has rarely hesitated, and never omit- 
 ted to do its duty in this respect. In reference to extradition, 
 it has been held to be within the competence of the executive, 
 and no legislation has been deemed necessary. Whatever may 
 be the theory of the English government in this respect, the 
 practice is different.* The treaty binds nobody till its pro- 
 visions are enacted by law. It may even happen — it did hap- 
 pen in reference to the extradition clause of the Treaty of 
 
 * Blackstone states the doctrine of the British Constitution to be the same as 
 ours. " Whatever contracts the king engages in, no other power in the kingdom 
 can legally delay, resist, or annul" (vol. i., p. 257). Such, how^ever, is not the 
 practice. The courts of law in England will not allow a treaty to be pleaded 
 against an act of Parliament. 
 
XVI INTRODUCTIOK. 
 
 Washington — that conditions may be introduced into the law 
 which do not exist in the treaty. The American courts, in such 
 a case, would decide so much of the law as conflicted with the 
 treaty to be unconstitutional. The English courts, on the con- 
 trary, would regard as a dead letter so much of the treaty as 
 was not re-enacted in the law. Several claims on the British 
 government have arisen within the last thirty years, on behalf 
 of American citizens, for export and import duties levied, as 
 has been alleged, on American property, in violation of the 
 commercial convention between the two countries. The claim- 
 ants have found it impossible to obtain a legal adjudication of 
 their claims (to which they have avowed their willingness to 
 submit them, although before the tribunals of a foreign govern- 
 ment), from the refusal of the courts to allow a treaty to be 
 pleaded against an act of Parliament, A very considerable 
 portion of the correspondence of the United States' minister in 
 London with the British government, for the last twenty-five 
 years, has grown out of claims of this description. 
 
 The stipulations for extradition in the Treaty of Washing- 
 ton appear to have served as a model for those since entered 
 into between the most considerable European powers. A con- 
 vention for the same purpose was concluded between England 
 and France on the 13th of February, 1843, and other similar 
 compacts have, it is believed, still more recently been negotia- 
 ted. Between the United States and Great Britain, the opera- 
 tion of this part of the treaty has, in all ordinary cases, been 
 entirely satisfactory. Persons charged with the crimes to 
 which its provisions extend have been mutually surrendered ; 
 and the cause of public justice, and in many cases important 
 private interests, have been materially served on both sides of 
 the water. 
 
 Not inferior in importance and delicacy to the other sub- 
 jects provided for by the treaty, was that which concerned 
 the measures for the suppression of " the slave trade" on the 
 coast of Africa. The law of nations, as understood and laid 
 down by the most respectable authorities and tribunals, Eu- 
 ropean and American, recognizes the right of search of neutral 
 vessels in time of war, by the public ships of the belligerents. 
 It recognizes no right of search in time of peace. It makes no 
 distinction between a right of visitation and a right of search. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XVll 
 
 To compel a trading vessel, against the will of her command- 
 er, to come to and be boarded, for any purpose whatsoever, 
 is an exercise of the right of search which the law of nations 
 concedes to belligerents for certain purposes. To do this in 
 time of peace, under whatever name it may be excused or just- 
 ified, is to perform an act of mere power, for which the law of 
 nations affords no warrant. The moral quality of the action, 
 and the estimate formed of it, will of course depend upon cir- 
 cumstances, motives, and manner. If an armed ship board a 
 vessel under reasonable suspicion that she is a pirate, and when 
 there is no other convenient mode of ascertaining that point, 
 there would be no cause of blame, although the suspicion turned 
 out to be groundless. 
 
 The British government, for the praiseworthy purpose of 
 putting a stop to the detestable traffic in slaves, has at differeat 
 times entered into conventions with several of the states of Eu- 
 rope, authorizing a mutual right of search of the trading ves- 
 sels of each contracting party by the armed cruisers of the oth- 
 er party. These treaties give no right to search the vessels of 
 nations not parties to them. But if an armed ship of either 
 party should search a vessel of a third power under a reason- 
 able suspicion that she belonged to the other contracting party, 
 and was pursuing the slave trade in contravention of the treaty, 
 this act of power, performed by mistake, and with requisite 
 moderation and circumspection in the manner, would not be 
 ground of offense to the government of the third nation. It 
 would, however, authorize a reasonable expectation of indem- 
 nification on behalf of the private individuals who might suffer 
 by the detention, as in other cases of injury inflicted on innocent 
 parties by public functionaries acting with good intentions at 
 their peril. 
 
 The government of the United States, both in its executive 
 and legislative branches, has at almost all times manifested an 
 extreme repugnance to enter into conventions for a mutual 
 right of search. It has not yieldec^ to any other power in its 
 aversion to the slave trade, whic-i it was the first government 
 to denounce as piracy. The reluctance in question grew prin- 
 cipally out of the injuries .'nflicted upon the American com- 
 merce, and still more out of the personal outrages in the im- 
 pressment of American seamen, which took place during the 
 
 B 
 
XVIU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 wars of Napoleon, and incidentally to the belligerent right 
 of search and the enforcement of the Orders in Council and 
 the Berlin and Milan decrees. Besides a wholesale confisca- 
 tion of American property, hundreds of American seamen were 
 impressed into the ships of war of Great Britain. So deeply 
 had the public sensibility been wounded on both points, that 
 any extension of the right of search by the consent of the Unit- 
 ed States was for a long time nearly hopeless. 
 
 But this feeling, strong and general as it was, yielded at last 
 to the detestation of the slave trade. Toward the close of the 
 second administration of Mr. Monroe the executive had been 
 induced, acting under the sanction of resolutions of the two 
 houses of Congress, to agree to a convention with Great Brit- 
 ain for a mutual right of search of vessels suspected of being 
 engaged in the traffic. This convention was negotiated in 
 London by Mr. Rush on the part of the United States, Mr. 
 Canning being Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
 
 In defining the limits within which this right should be exer- 
 cised, the coasts of America were included. The Senate was 
 of opinion that such a provision might be regarded as an ad- 
 mission that the slave trade was carried on between the coasts 
 of Africa and the United States, contrary to the known fact, 
 and to the reproach either of the will or power of the United 
 States to enforce their laws, by which it was declared to be 
 piracy. It also placed the whole coast of the Union under the 
 surveillance of the cruisers of a foreign power. The Senate, 
 accordingly, ratified the treaty, with an amendment exempting 
 the coasts of the United States from the operation of the arti- 
 cle. They also introduced other amendments of less import- 
 ance. 
 
 On the return of the treaty to London thus amended, Mr. 
 Canning gave way to a feeling of dissatisfaction at the course 
 pursued by the Senate, not so much on account of any decided 
 objection to the amendment in itself considered, as to the claim 
 of the Senate to introduce any change into a treaty negotiated 
 according to instructions. Under the influence of this feeling, 
 Mr. Canning refused to ratify the treaty as amended, and no 
 further attempt was at that time made to renew the negotiation. 
 It will probably be admitted on al'i hands, at the present day, 
 that Mr. Canning's scruple was without foundation. The treaty 
 
INTRODUCTION. XIX 
 
 lad been negotiated by this accomplished statesman, under the 
 ull knowledge that the Constitution of the United States re- 
 lerves this power to the Senate. That it should be exercised 
 va.s, therefore, no more matter of complaint than that the treaty 
 ihould be referred at all to the ratification of the Senate. The 
 course pursued by Mr. Canning was greatly to be regretted, 
 is it postponed the amicable adjustment of this matter for 
 eighteen years, not without risk of serious misunderstanding in 
 he interval. 
 
 Attempts were made on the part of England, during the 
 ninistry of Lord Melbourne, to renew the negotiation with the 
 Jnited States, but without success. Conventions between 
 ^rance and England, for a mutual right of search within cer- 
 ain limits, were concluded in 1831 and 1833, under the min- 
 stry of the Due de Broglie, without awakening to the public 
 ensibility in the former country. As these treaties multiplied, 
 he activity of the English cruisers increased. After the treaty 
 vith Portugal in 1838, the vessels of that country, which, with 
 hose of Spain, were most largely engaged in the traffic, began 
 assume the flag of the United States as a protection ; and in 
 nany cases also, although the property of vessels and cargo 
 lad, by collusive transfers on the African coast, become Span- 
 sh or Portuguese, the vessels had been built and fitted out in 
 he United States, and too often, it may be feared, with Amer- 
 can capital. Vessels of this description were provided with 
 wo sets of papers, to be used as occasion might require. 
 
 Had nothing further been done by British cruisers than to 
 loard and search these vessels, whether before or after a trans- 
 er of this kind, no complaint would probably have been made 
 ly the government of the United States. But as many Amer- 
 can vessels were engaged in lawful commerce to the coast of 
 iifrica, it frequently happened that they were boarded by Brit- 
 sh cruisers, not always under the command of discreet offi- 
 ;ers. Some voyages were broken up, officers and men occa- 
 ionally ill-treated, and vessels sent to the United States or Si- 
 rra Leone for adjudication. 
 
 In 1840 an agreement was made between the officers m 
 ;ommand of the British and American squadrons respectively 
 lanctioning a reciprocal right of search on the coasts of Af- 
 ica. It will be found at pages 73 and 74 of the present vol- 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 urne. It was a well-meant but unauthorized step, and was 
 promptly disavowed by the administration of Mr. Van Buren. 
 Its operation, while it lasted, was but to increase the existing 
 difficulty. Reports of the interruptions experienced by our 
 commerce in the African waters began greatly to multiply. 
 There was a strong interest on the part of those surrepti- 
 tiously engaged in the traffic to give them currency. A deep 
 feeling began to be manifested in the country ; and the corre- 
 spondence between the American minister in London and Lord 
 Palmerston, in the last days of the Melbourne ministry, was 
 such as to show the somewhat critical point which the contro- 
 versy had reached. 
 
 This controversy was transmitted, as we have seen, to the 
 new administrations on both sides of the water, but soon as- 
 sumed a somewhat modified character. The quintuple treaty, 
 as it was called, was concluded at London on the 20th of De- 
 cember, 1841, by England, France, Austria, Prussia, and Rus- 
 sia ; and information of that fact, as we have seen above, was 
 given by Loi'd Aberdeen to Mr. Everett the same day. A. 
 strong desire was intimated that the United States would join 
 this association of the great powers, although no formal invita- 
 tion for that purpose was addressed to them. But the recent 
 occurrences on the coast of Africa, and the tone of the corre- 
 spondence above alluded to, had increased the standing repug- 
 nance of the United States to the recognition of the right of 
 search in time of peace. 
 
 In the mean time, the same complaints — sometimes just, 
 sometimes exaggerated, sometimes groundless — had reached 
 France from the coast of Africa, and a strong feeling against 
 the right of search was produced in that country. The inci- 
 dents connected with the adjustment of the Syrian question in 
 1840 had greatly irritated the French ministry and people, and 
 the present was deemed a favorable moment for retaliation. On 
 the assembling of the Chambers, an amendment was moved by 
 M. Lefebvre to the address in reply to the king's speech in the 
 following terms : " We have also the confidence, that in grant- 
 ing its concurrence to the suppression of a criminal traffic, 
 your government will know how to preserve from every at- 
 tack the interest of our commerce and the independence of our 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXI 
 
 flag." This amendment was adopted by the unanimous vote 
 of the Chambers. 
 
 This was the most formidable parhamentary check ever en- 
 countered, before or since, by M. Guizot's administration.* It 
 excited profound sensation throughout Europe. It compelled 
 the French ministry to make the painful sacrifice of a conven- 
 tion negotiated agreeably to instructions, and not differing in 
 principle from those of 1831 and 1833, which were consequent- 
 ly liable to be involved in its fate. The ratification of the quin- 
 tuple treaty was felt to be out of the question. Although it 
 soon appeared that the king was determined to sustain M. Gui- 
 zot, it was by no means apparent in what manner his adminis- 
 tration was to be rescued from the present embarrassment. 
 
 The public feeling in France was considerably heightened 
 by various documents which appeared at this juncture, in con- 
 nection with the controversy between the United States and 
 Great Britain. The President's Message and its accompany- 
 mg papers reached Europe about the period of the opening of 
 the session. A very few days after the adoption of M. Le- 
 febvre's amendment, a pamphlet, written by General Cass, was 
 published in Paris, and, being soon after translated into French 
 and widely circulated, contributed to strengthen the current of 
 public feeling. A more elaborate essay on the right of search 
 was, in the course of the season, published by Mr. Wheaton, 
 the minister of the United States at Berlin, in which the theory 
 of a right of search in time of peace was vigorously assailed. 
 
 The preceding sketch of the history of the question will 
 show the difficulty of the position in reference to this most im- 
 portant interest, at the time Lord Ashburton's mission was in- 
 stituted. With what practical good sense and high statesman- 
 ship the controversy was terminated is known to the country, 
 and is seen in the following pages. It is unnecessary here to 
 retrace the steps of the correspondence, to comment on the 
 eighth article of the Treaty of Washington, or to analyze the 
 parliamentary and diplomatic discussions to which in the fol- 
 lowing year it gave rise. It is enough to say, that under cir- 
 cumstances of some embarrassment to the Department of State, 
 a course of procedure was happily devised and incorporated 
 
 * It is scarcely necessary to state that this was written before the late revolu 
 tion in E'rance. 
 
XXU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 with the treaty, which, leaving untouched the metaphysics of 
 the question, furnished a satisfactory practical solution of the 
 difficulty. Circumstances having made a re-statement expe- 
 dient of the principles maintained by the United States on this 
 most important subject, a letter was addressed by Mr. Web- 
 ster to Mr. Everett, on the 28th of March, 1843, to be read to 
 the British minister, in which the law of nations applicable to 
 the subject was expounded by the American secretary with a 
 clearness and power which will render any further discussion 
 of the subject, under its present aspects, entirely superfluous. 
 Nor will it be thought out of place to acknowledge the fair- 
 ness, good temper, and ability with which the doctrine and 
 practice of the English government were sustained by the Earl 
 of Aberdeen. 
 
 The efl^ect of the eighth article of the Treaty of Washington 
 was decisive. It raised the jealousy already existing in France 
 on this subject to the point of uncontrollable repugnance. The 
 ratification of the quintuple treaty had long been abandoned. 
 It was soon evident that the conventions of 1831 and 1833 
 must be given up. In the course of the year 184-4, the Due de 
 Broglie, the honorable and accomplished minister by whom 
 they had been negotiated, accepted a special mission to Lon- 
 don, for the purpose of coming to some satisfactory arrange- 
 ment by way of substitute, and a convention was soon con- 
 cluded with the British government on precisely the same prin- 
 ciples as those of the Treaty of Washington. 
 
 It may be matter of regret that the public feeling of the 
 United States has become so strong and fixed against a mutual 
 right of search on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the 
 slave trade. This detestable traffic still exists, it is to be feared, 
 unimpaired in extent, and with aggravated horrors, caused by 
 the expedients employed to evade the cruisers. In a mutual 
 right of search there can be no disparagement. It is not easy 
 to see how it can be thought degrading to the national honor, 
 while the belligerent right of search, which makes the armed 
 cruisers of the parties at war, and their courts of admiralty, 
 sovereign arbiters of the seas, is submitted to without a mur- 
 mur. The enormous evils of the traffic ought to reconcile the 
 United States to the adoption of the measures best calculated 
 to repress it ; among which, a mutual right of search by agree- 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXIU 
 
 ment with all the great powers of Christendom, is no doubt the 
 most efficacious. Above all, it may be hoped that the sug- 
 gestion of Mr. Webster will be borne in mind, in any future 
 discussions of this and other maritime questions, that the policy 
 of the United States is not that of a feeble naval power, inter- 
 ested in exaggerating the doctrine of neutral inviolability. A 
 respect for every independent flag is a common interest of all 
 civilized states, powerful or weak ; but the rank of the United 
 States among naval powers, and their position as the great 
 maritime power on the eastern coasts of the Atlantic and the 
 western coasts of the Pacific, may lead them to doubt the ex- 
 pediency of pressing too far the views they have hitherto held, 
 and moderate their anxiety to construe with extreme strictness 
 the rights which the law of nations concedes to public vessels. 
 
 The three subjects on which we have dwelt, viz., the north- 
 eastern boundary, the extradition of fugitives, and the sup- 
 pression of the slave trade, were the only ones which required 
 to be provided for by treaty stipulation. Other subjects, scarce- 
 ly less important, and fully as difficult, were happily disposed 
 of in the correspondence of the plenipotentiaries. These were, 
 the affair of the "Caroline," that of the "Creole," and the ques- 
 tion of impressment. The space assigned to these introduc- 
 tory remarks is too nearly exhausted for any detail of observ- 
 ation on these topics ; but we shall be pardoned for one or two 
 reflections. 
 
 So urgent is the pressure on the public mind of the success- 
 ive events, which demand attention each as it presents itself, 
 that the formidable difficulties growing out of the destruction 
 of the "Caroline" and the arrest of M'Leod are already fading 
 from recollection. They formed, in reality, a crisis of a most 
 serious and delicate character. A glance at the correspond- 
 ence of the two governments at Washington and London suffi- 
 ciently shows this to be the case. The violation of the terri- 
 tory of the United States in the destruction of the "Caroline," 
 however unwarrantable the Conduct of the "sympathizers" 
 which provoked it, became, from the moment the British gov 
 ernment assumed the responsibility of the act, an incident of 
 the gravest character. On the other hand, the inability of the 
 government of the United States to extricate M'Leod from the 
 
XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 risks of a capital trial in a state court, although the govern- 
 ment of England demanded his liberation, on the ground that 
 he was acting under the legal orders of his superior, presented 
 a difficulty in the working of our system equally novel and im- 
 portant. Other cases had arisen, in which important consti- 
 tutional principles had failed to take effect in particular cases, 
 for want of the requisite legislative provisions. It is believed 
 that this was the first case in which a difficulty of this kind 
 had presented itself in our foreign relations. A more threaten- 
 ing one can scarcely be imagined. In addition to the embar- 
 rassment occasioned by the refusal of the executive and judi- 
 ciary of New York to yield to the representations of the Gen- 
 eral Government, the violent interference of the mob presented 
 new difficulties of the most deplorable character. Had M'Leod 
 been condemned and executed, it is not too much to say that 
 war must have ensued. His acquittal averted this impending 
 danger. The conciliatory spirit can not be too warmly com- 
 mended with which, on the one hand, the proper I'eparation 
 was made by Lord Ashburton for the violation of the Ameri- 
 can territory, and on the other hand, Congress, by the pas- 
 sage of a law (see page 137 of the present volume), provided 
 an effectual legislative remedy for any future similar case. 
 They show with what simplicity and ease the greatest evils 
 may be averted, and the most desirable ends achieved by 
 statesmen and governments animated by a sincere desire to 
 promote the welfare of those who have placed power in their 
 hands, not for selfish party purposes, but for the public good. 
 
 There is, perhaps, no part of the following pages in which 
 as much force of statement and dialectic power are displayed 
 as in the letter on "impressment." To incorporate a stipula- 
 tion on this subject into a treaty was, regarding the antece- 
 dents of the question, impracticable. But the reply of Lord 
 Ashburton to Mr. Webster's announcement of the American 
 principle must be considered as acquiescence on the part of 
 his government. It may be doubted whether this odious and 
 essentially illegal practice will ever again be systematically 
 resorted to even in England. Considering the advance made 
 by public sentiment on all questions connected with personal 
 liberty, " a hot-press on the Thames" would hardly stand the 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXV 
 
 ordeal of an investigation in Parliament. It is certain that the 
 right of impressing seamen from American vessels could never 
 be practically asserted in a future war, with any other effect 
 than that of adding the United States to the parties in the con- 
 test. No refinements in the doctrine of natural allegiance, al- 
 though their theoretical soundness might equal their subtlety, 
 would be of the least avail here. To force seamen from the 
 deck of a peaceful neutral pursuing a lawful commerce, and 
 compel them to serve for an indefinite and hopeless period on 
 board a foreign man-of-war, is an act of violence and power 
 to which no nation will submit that is able to resist it. In the 
 case of the United States and Great Britain, that community 
 of language and general appearance, which may have been 
 considered as palliating the most deplorable results of the ex- 
 ercise of this power, in reality constitutes the strongest reason 
 for its abandonment. The unquestionable danger that, with 
 the best intentions, the foreign officer may mistake an Ameri- 
 can for an Englishman ; the certainty that a reckless lieuten- 
 ant, unmindful of consequences, but resolute upon recruiting 
 his ship on a remote foreign station, will pretend to believe 
 that he is seizing the subjects of his own government, what- 
 ever may be the evidence to the contrary, are reasons of them- 
 selves for denying on the threshold the existence of a right 
 exposed to such inevitable and intolerable abuse. 
 
 These, and other views of the subject, are presented in Mr. 
 Webster's letter to Lord Ashburton of the 8th of August, 1842, 
 with a power of argument and force of illustration not often 
 equaled in a state paper. That letter was spoken of, in the 
 hearing of the writer of these remarks, by one whose name, if 
 it could be mentioned with propriety, would give the highest 
 authority to the opinion, as a composition not surpassed by 
 any thing in the language. The principles laid down in it 
 may be considered as incorporated into the public law of the 
 United States, and will have their influence beyond our own 
 territorial limits, and beyond our own time. 
 
 Some disappointment was probably felt, when the Treaty of 
 Washington was published, that a settlement of the Oregon 
 question was not included among its provisions. It need not 
 be said that a subject of such magnitude did not escape the 
 attention of the negotiators. It was, however, speedily infer- 
 
^^^^ INTRODUCTION. 
 
 red by the American secretary, from the purport of his informal 
 conferences with Lord Ashburton on this point, that an ar- 
 rangement of this question was not then practicable, and that 
 to attempt it would be to put the entire negotiation to great 
 risk of failure. On the other hand, it was not less certain that, 
 by closmg up the other matters in controversy, the best prep- 
 aration was made for bringing the Oregon dispute to an ami- 
 cable issue whenever circumstances should favor that under- 
 taking. Considerable firmness was no doubt required to adopt 
 and act upon this policy, and to forego the attempt, at least, to 
 settle a question rapidly growing into the most formidable 
 magmtude. It is unnecessary to say how completely the course 
 adopted has been justified by the event. 
 
 We have in the preceding remarks confined ourselves to the 
 topics connected with the Treaty of Washington. The papers 
 belonging to this subject occupy the larger part of the volume ; 
 It is in Itself of paramount importance, and it is that which en- 
 tered principally into the political discussions of the day. The 
 residue of the volume contains the correspondence of Mr. Web- 
 ster as Secretary of State on various subjects of great interest. 
 The first part of it pertains to our controversies with Mexi- 
 co, and was carried on with M. de Bocanegra as Mexican Sec- 
 retary of State and Foreign Relations. The great and unex- 
 pected changes, commenced and in progress in that quarter, 
 since the date of this correspondence, will not impair'the in- 
 terest with which it will be read. It throws important light 
 on the eariier stages of our controversy with that ill-advised 
 and infatuated government. Among the papers in this part 
 of the volume are those which relate to the Santa Fe prison- 
 ers and Captain Jones's attack on Monterey. 
 
 Under the head of " Relations with Spain" will be found a 
 correspondence of great interest between the Chevalier d'Ar- 
 gaiz, the representative of that government, and Mr. Webster, 
 on the subject of the " Amistad." The pertinacity with which 
 this matter was pursued by Spain, after its adjudication by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, furnishes an instructive 
 commentary upon the sincerity of that government in its 
 measures for the abolition of the slave trade. The entire 
 merits of this important and extraordinary case are condensed 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXVU 
 
 in Mr. Webster's letters of the 1st of September, 1841, and 21st 
 of June, 1842. 
 
 The next division of the volume, under the head of "China 
 and the Sandwich Islands," embraces the instructions given to 
 Mr. Gushing as commissioner to China, and the correspondence 
 between Mr. Webster and Messrs. Richards and Haalilio on 
 behalf of the Sandwich Islands. At any period less crowded 
 with important events, the opening of diplomatic relations with 
 China, and the conclusion of a treaty of commerce with that 
 power, would have been deemed occurrences of unusual im- 
 portance. It certainly reflects gi-eat credit on the administra- 
 tion, that it actecf with such promptitude and efficiency in seiz- 
 ing this opportunity of multiplying avenues of commercial in- 
 tercourse. Nor is less praise due to the energy and skill of 
 the negotiator (Mr. Cushing) to whom this novel and import- 
 ant undertaking was confided, and who was able to embark 
 from China, on his return homeward, in six months after his 
 arrival, having in the mean time satisfactorily concluded the 
 treaty. 
 
 The appHcation of the representatives of the Sandwich Isl- 
 ands to the government of the United States, and the counte- 
 nance extended to them at Washington, exercised a most sal- 
 utary and seasonable influence over the destiny of those isl- 
 ands. The British government was promptly made aware of 
 the course pursued by the United States, and was no doubt 
 led in a considerable degree, by this circumstance, to promise 
 the Hawaiian delegates, on the part of England, to respect the 
 independent neutrality of those islands. In the mean time, the 
 British admiral on that station had taken provisional posses- 
 sion of them on behalf of his government, in intended antici- 
 pation of a similar movement on the part of France. Had 
 intelligence of this occurrence been received in London before 
 the promise above alluded to was given by Lord Aberdeen to 
 Messrs. Richards and Haalilio, it is not impossible that Great 
 Britain might have felt herself warranted in retaining the pro- 
 tectorate of the Hawaiian Islands as an offset for the occupa- 
 tion of Tahiti by the French. As it was, the temporary ar- 
 rangement of the British admiral was disavowed, and the gov- 
 ernment restored to the native chief. 
 
 A correspondence follows between Mr. Webster and the 
 
XXVin INTRODUCTION^ 
 
 Portuguese minister on the subject of duties on Portuguese 
 wines, and the volume closes with a report of great importance 
 on the Sound duties and the Zoll Verein, topics to which events 
 now in progress (April, 1848) will henceforward impart a 
 greatly-increased importance. 
 
 This brief enumeration will of itself sufficiently show the 
 extensive range of the subjects to which the attention of the 
 American executive was called during the period to which it 
 pertains. 
 
 In drawing these introductory remarks to a close, the writer 
 can not forego the reflection that, although the papers contain- 
 ed in the present volume probably form but a small portion of 
 the official correspondence of the Department of Slate for the 
 period during which it was filled by Mr. Webster, they con- 
 stitute, nevertheless, the most important part of the document- 
 ary record of a pei'iod of official service, brief, indeed, but as 
 beneficial to the country as any of which the memory is pre- 
 served in her annals. The administration of General Harrison 
 found the United States, in the spring of 1841, on the verge of 
 a war, not with a feeble Spanish province, scarcely capable 
 of a respectable resistance, but with the most powerful gov- 
 ernment on earth. The conduct of our foreign relations was 
 intrusted to Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, and in two 
 years for which he filled that office controversies of fifty years' 
 standing were terminated, new causes of quarrel that sprung 
 up like hydra's heads were settled, and Peace was preserved 
 upon honorable terms. The British government, fresh from 
 the conquest of China, perhaps never felt itself stronger than 
 in the year 1842, and a full share of credit is due to the spirit 
 of conciliation which swayed its councils. Much is due to 
 the wise and amiable negotiator who was dispatched on the 
 holy errand of peace ; much to the patriotism of the Senate of 
 the United States, who confirmed the treaty by a larger ma- 
 jority than ever before sustained a measure of this kind which 
 divided public opinion ; but the first meed of praise is unques- 
 tionably due to the negotiator. Let the just measure of that 
 praise be estimated by reflecting what would be our condition 
 at the present day if, instead of or in addition to the war with 
 Mexico, we were involved in a war with Great Britain. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pago 
 TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 
 
 Northeastern Boundary 33 
 
 Suppression of the Slave Trade 72 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE WaTH LORD ASHBURTON. 
 
 Maritime Rights. Case of the " Creole" 83 
 
 Impressment , 95 
 
 Inviolability of National Territory. Case of the " Caroline" 104 
 
 THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD 120 
 
 RIGHT OF SEARCH 140 
 
 president's message, AND TREATY OF WASHINGTON 222 
 
 VOTE OF THE SENATE ON THE FINAL QUESTION OF RATIFICATION 238 
 
 MR. Webster's speech in the senate of the united states, 
 
 APRIL, 1846, in vindication of the treaty of WASHINGTON 
 
 OF 1842 239 
 
 relations WITH MEXICO 301 
 
 Respecting the American Citizens captured at Santa Fe. . . 317 
 Captain Jones's Attack on Monterey 333 
 
 RELATIONS WITH SPAIN 339 
 
 CHtNA AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS 357 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 AND PORTUGAL, RESPECTING DUTIES AT THE CUSTOM-HOUSE... 374 
 
 SOUND DUES AT ELSINORE, AND THE ZOLL VEREIN UNION 382 
 
DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
nil I 
 
 lull |^<^ .wK/x Lvr iAitxn.V' u. Aixictt ov/i.tjv^i£xoxxi* yjx ciix xiictc.w'jLO XXX uiopuLO* 
 
 ***** This step was determined on from 
 
 C 
 
-<;..,- 
 
 ^4-*^? 
 
 4 ATB 
 
 s 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL 
 PAPERS. 
 
 TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 
 
 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 
 
 A LEADING object souglit to be accomplished, and which was 
 accomplished, by the Treaty of Washington, was the settle- 
 ment of the controversy between the United States and En- 
 gland relative to the northern and northeastern boundary of 
 the United States. 
 
 The history of this controversy, from the Treaty of Peace, 
 in 1783, to its final adjustment in 1842, is given in Mr. Web- 
 ster's speech in the Senate, the Gth and 7th of April, 1846, 
 which is contained in this publication. In the summer of 1841, 
 Mr. Webster signified to Mr. Fox, the British minister at 
 Washington, that, having received the President's authority for 
 so doing, he was then willing to make an attempt to settle the 
 boundary dispute, by agreeing on a conventional line, or line 
 by compromise. In September of that year the ministry of 
 Sir Robert Peel came into power ; and Lord Aberdeen, Secre- 
 tary of State for Foreign Affairs, having been informed of what 
 had been said by Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, invited Mr. Everett, 
 at that time minister of the United States at the court of Lon- 
 don, to an interview on that subject. The following corre- 
 spondence immediately took place 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, December 31, 1841. 
 
 ******* 
 
 At a late hour on the evening of the 26th, I received a note 
 from the Earl of Aberdeen, requesting an interview for the fol- 
 lowing day, when I met him at the Foreign Office, agreeably 
 to the appointment. After one or two general remarks upon 
 the difficulty of bringing about an adjustment of the points of 
 controversy between the governments, by a continuance of the 
 discussions hitherto carried on, he said that her majesty's gov- 
 ernment had determined to take a decisive step toward that 
 end, by sending a special minister to the United States, with a 
 full power to make a final settlement of all matters in dispute. 
 ***** This step was determined on from 
 
 C 
 
34 DirLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 a sincere and earnest desire to bring the matter so long in con- 
 troversy to an amicable settlement ; and if, as he did not doubt, 
 the same disposition existed at Washington, he thought this 
 step afforded the most favorable, and, indeed, the only means 
 of carrying it into effect. In the choice of the individual for 
 the mission, Lord Aberdeen added, that he had been mainly 
 influenced by a desire to select a person who would be pecul- 
 iarly acceptable in the United States, as well as eminently 
 qualified for the trust, and that he persuaded himself he had 
 found one who, in both respects, was all that could be wished. 
 He then named Lord Ashburton, who had consented to under- 
 take the mission. 
 
 Although this communication was, of course, wholly unex- 
 pected to me, I felt no hesitation in expressing the great satis- 
 faction with which I received it. I assured Lord Aberdeen that 
 the President had nothing more at heart than an honorable ad- 
 justment of the matters in discussion between the two countries ; 
 that I was persuaded a more acceptable selection of a person 
 for the important mission proposed could not have been made; 
 and that I anticipated the happiest results from this overture. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen rejoined, that it was more than an overture ; 
 that Lord Ashburton would go with full powers to make a de- 
 finitive arrangement on every point in discussion between the 
 two countries. He was aware of the difficulty of some of 
 them, particularly what had incorrectly been called the right 
 of search, which he deemed the most difficult of all ; but he was 
 willing to confide this and all other matters in controversy to 
 Lord Ashburton's discretion. He added, that they should have 
 been quite willing to come to a general arrangement here, but 
 they supposed I had not full powers for such a purpose. 
 
 This measure being determined on. Lord Aberdeen said he 
 presumed it would be hardly worth while for us to continue 
 the correspondence here on matters in dispute between the 
 governments. He, of course, was quite willing to consider and 
 reply to any statement I might think proper to make on any 
 subject ; but, pending the negotiations that might take place at 
 Washington, he supposed no benefit could result from a simul- 
 taneous discussion here. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. — [extract.] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 29, 1842. 
 
 By the " Britannia," arrived at Boston, I have received your 
 dispatch of the 28th of December (No. 4), and your other dis- 
 patch of the 31st of the same month (No. 5), with a postscript 
 of the 3d of January. 
 
 The necessity of returning an early answer to these com- 
 munications (as the " Britannia " is expected to leave Boston 
 on the 1st of February) obliges me to postpone a reply to those 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 35 
 
 parts of them which are not of considerable and immediate 
 importance. 
 
 The President expresses himself gratified with the manner 
 in which the queen received you to present your letter of 
 credence, and with the civility and respect which appear to 
 characterize the deportment of Lord Aberdeen in his inter- 
 course with you ; and you will please signify to Lord Aber- 
 deen the President's sincere disposition to bring all matters in 
 discussion between the two governments to a speedy as well 
 as an amicable adjustment. 
 
 The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 
 20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord 
 Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you were quite 
 right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. 
 It is only by the exercise of calm reason that truth can be ar- 
 rived at in questions of a complicated nature ; and between 
 states, each of which understands and respects the intelligence 
 and the power of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness 
 to follow its guidance. At the present day, no state is so high 
 as that the principles of its intercourse with other nations are 
 above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, 
 the whole civilized world, now vastly better informed on such 
 subjects than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the 
 principles adopted, and the purposes avowed, by the leading 
 states, necessarily constitutes a tribunal, august in character 
 and formidable in its decisions. And it is before this tribunal, 
 and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the 
 usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of public law, 
 that governments, which respect themselves and respect their 
 neighbors, must be prepared to discuss, with candor and with 
 dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to spring 
 up between them. 
 
 Your dispatch of the 31st of December announces the import- 
 ant intelligence of an intention of dispatching a special minister 
 from England to the United States, with full powers to settle 
 every matter in dispute between the two governments ; and 
 the President directs me to say, that he regards this proceed- 
 ing as originating in an entirely amicable spirit, and that it 
 will be met, on his part, with perfectly corresponding senti- 
 ments. The high character of Lord Ashburton is well known 
 to this government ; and it is not doubted that he will enter 
 on the duties assigned to him, not only with the advantages of 
 much knowledge and experience in public affairs, but with a 
 true desire to signalize his mission by assisting to place the 
 peace of the two countries on a permanent basis. He will be re- 
 ceived with the respect due to his own character, the character 
 of the government which sends him, and the high importance, 
 to both countries, of the subjects intrusted to his negotiation. 
 
36 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Tlie President approves your conduct in not pursuing in 
 England the discussion of questions wliich are now to become 
 the subjects of negotiation here. 
 
 (Signed), Danl. Webster. 
 
 Lord Ashburton arrived in Washington, April 4, 1842; and 
 shortly after Mr. Webster addressed the following letter to the 
 Governor of the State of Maine : 
 
 Mr. Webster to Governor Fairfield. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, April 11, 1842. 
 
 Your excellency is aware that, previous to March, 1841, a 
 negotiation had been going on for some time between the Sec- 
 retary of State of the United States, under the direction of the 
 President, and the British minister accredited to this govern- 
 ment, having for its object the creation of a joint commission 
 for settling the controversy respecting the northeastern bound- 
 ary of the United States, with a provision for an ultimate 
 reference to arbitrators, to be appointed by some one of the 
 sovereigns of Europe, in case an arbitration should become 
 jiecessary. On the leading features of a convention for this 
 purpose the two governments had become agreed ; but on sev- 
 eral matters of detail the parties differed, and appear to have 
 been interchanging their respective views and opinions, proj- 
 ects, and counter-projects, without coming to any final arrange- 
 ment, down to August, 1840. Various causes, not now neces- 
 sary to be explained, arrested the progress of the negotiation at 
 that time, and no considerable advance has since been made in it. 
 
 It seems to have been understood on both sides that, one 
 arbitration having failed, it was the duty of the two parties to 
 proceed to institute another, according to the spirit of the treaty 
 of Ghent and other treaties ; and the President has felt it to be 
 his duty, unless some new course should be proposed, to cause 
 the negotiation to be resumed, and pressed to its conclusion. 
 But I have now to inform your excellency that Lord Ashburton, 
 a minister plenipotentiary and special, has arrived at the seat 
 of the government of the United States, charged with full 
 powers from his sovereign to negotiate and settle the different 
 jnatters in discussion between the two governments. I have 
 further to state to you, that he has officially announced to this 
 department that, in regard to the boundary question, he has 
 authority to treat for a conventional line, or line by agreement, 
 on such terms and conditions, and with such mutual consider- 
 ations and equivalents, as may be thought just and equitable, 
 and that he is ready to enter upon a negotiation for such con- 
 ventional line so soon as this government shall say it is author- 
 ized and ready, on its part, to commence such negotiation. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the President has felt it to be his 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 37 
 
 duty to call the serious attention of the governments of Maine 
 and Massachusetts to the subject, and to submit to those gov- 
 ernments the propriety of their co-operation, to a certain ex- 
 tent, and in a certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a con- 
 troversy ah'eady of so long duration, and w^hich seems very 
 likely to be still considerably further protracted before the de- 
 sired end of a final adjustment shall be attained, unless a shorter 
 course of arriving at that end be adopted, than such as has 
 heretofore been pursued, and as the two governments are still 
 pursuing. 
 
 Yet, without the concurrence of the two states whose rights 
 are more immediately concerned, both having an interest in 
 the soil, and one of them in the jurisdiction and government, 
 the duty of this government will be to adopt no new course, 
 but, in compliance with treaty stipulations, and in furtherance 
 of what has already been done, to hasten the pending negotia- 
 tions as fast as possible, in the course hitherto adopted. 
 
 But the President thmks it a highly desirable object to pre- 
 vent the delays necessarily incident to any settlement of the 
 question by these means. Such delays are great and unavoid- 
 able. It has been found that an exploration and examination 
 of the several lines constitute a work of three years. The ex- 
 isting commission for making such exploration, under the au- 
 thority of the United States, has been occupied two summers, 
 and a very considerable portion of the work remains still to be 
 done. If a joint commission should be appointed, and should 
 go through the same work, and the commissioners should dis- 
 agree, as is very possible, and an arbitration on that account 
 become indispensable, the arbitrators might find it necessary 
 to make an exploration and survey themselves, or cause the 
 same to be done by others, of their own appointment. If to 
 these causes, operating to postpone the final decision, be added 
 the time necessary to appoint arbitrators, and for their prepa- 
 ration to leave Europe for the service, and the various retard- 
 ing incidents always attending such operations, seven or eight 
 years constitute, perhaps, the shortest period within which we 
 can look for a final result. In the mean time, great expenses 
 have been incurred, and further expenses can not be avoided. 
 It is well known that the controversy has brought heavy 
 charges upon Maine herself, to the remuneration or proper 
 settlement of which she can not be expected to be indifferent. 
 The exploration by the government of the United States has 
 already cost a hundred thousand dollars, and the charge of 
 another summer's work is in prospect. These facts may be 
 sufficient to enable us to form a probable estimate of the whole 
 expense likely to be incurred before the controversy can be 
 settled by arbitration ; and our experience admonishes us that 
 even another arbitration might possibly fail. 
 
38 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 The opinion of this government upon the justice and validity 
 of the American claim has heen expressed at so many times, 
 and in so many forms, that a repetition of that opinion is not 
 necessary. But the subject is a subject in dispute. The gov- 
 ernment has agreed to make it matter of reference and arbitra- 
 tion ; and it must fulfill that agreement, unless another mode for 
 settling the controversy should be resorted to, with the hope 
 of producing a speedier decision. The President proposes, 
 then, that the governments of Maine and Massachusetts should 
 severally appoint a commissioner or commissioners, empower- 
 ed to confer with the authorities of this government upon a 
 conventional line, or line by agreement, with its terms, condi- 
 tions, considerations, and equivalents ; with an understanding 
 that no such line will be agreed upon without the assent of 
 such commissioners. 
 
 This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express 
 assent beforehand, seems indispensable, if any negotiation for 
 a conventional line is to be attempted ; since, if happily a treaty 
 should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be submitted 
 to the Senate of the United States for ratification. 
 
 It is a subject of deep and sincere regret to the President 
 that the British plenipotentiary did not arrive in the country 
 and make known his powers in time to have made this com- 
 munication before the annual session of the Legislature of the 
 two states had been brought to a close. He perceives and 
 laments the inconvenience which may be experienced from re- 
 assembling those legislatures. But the British mission is a 
 special one ; it does not supersede the resident mission of the 
 British government at Washington, and its stay in the United 
 States is not expected to be long. In addition to these con- 
 siderations, it is to be suggested that more than four months of 
 the session of Congress have already passed, and it is highly 
 desirable, if any treaty for a conventional line should be agreed 
 on, that it should be concluded before the session shall term- 
 inate, not only because of the necessity of the ratification of 
 the Senate, but also because it is not impossible that measures 
 may be thought advisable, or become important, which can 
 only be accomplished by the authority of both Houses. 
 
 These considerations, in addition to the importance of the 
 subject, and a firm conviction in the mind of the President that 
 the interests of both countries, as well as the interests of the 
 two states more immediately concerned, require a prompt effort 
 to bring this dispute to an end, constrain him to express an 
 earnest hope that your excellency will convene the Legislature 
 of Maine, and submit the subject to its grave and candid de- 
 liberations. I am, &LC., Daniel Webster. 
 
 His Excellency John Fairfield, Governor of Maine. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 39 
 
 The Governor of Maine to the President. 
 
 Executive Department, Augusta, May 27, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to inclose a copy of preamble and 
 resolutions adopted by the Legislature of this state relating to 
 the subject of the northern and northeastern boundaries of 
 Maine ; and also to inform you that the Hon. Edward Kava- 
 nagh, Hon. Edward Kent, Hon. William P. Preble, and Hon. 
 John Otis have been elected commissioners under said resolves. 
 Most respectfully your obedient servant, 
 
 John Fairfield. 
 
 His Excellency John Tyler, President of the United States, Washington. 
 
 Governor Davis to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Executive Department, Worcester, April ^7 , 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Since I last addressed you, I have received your favor 
 of the 16th instant, by which it appears the resolutions of the 
 Legislature of this commonwealth have reached you. These 
 resolves respecting the northeastern boundary were adopted 
 to meet the contingency which has occurred, and to avoid any 
 necessity for reassembling the Legislature on this account. As 
 soon as it became certain that a special envoy was to be dis- 
 patched hither by the Queen of the United Kingdoms, it was 
 apparent to me that he would be authorized to propose a con- 
 ventional line, as this is manifestly the only alternative short 
 of acceding to the treaty line of 1783. When the subject was 
 brought to the attention of the Legislature, it seemed to enter- 
 tain similar views, and with great harmony of opinion provided, 
 as well as the state of things, which was then wholly conjec- 
 tural, would enable them. 
 
 The council will meet on the 25th of May for the regular 
 dispatch of business, when their attention will be invited to the 
 expediency of consenting to the appointment of an agent or 
 agents to represent the state. I have the honor to be your 
 obedient servant, J. Davis. 
 
 The Secretary of State /o?- the United States. 
 
 The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Fuller's Hotel, Washington, June 12, 1842. 
 
 The commissioners of Maine, on the subject of the north- 
 eastern boundary, present their respectful compliments to the 
 Honorable Mr. Webster, Secretary of State of the United 
 States, and beg leave to inform him that they are now in this 
 city ready to enter upon the business intrusted to them. They 
 also avail themselves of the occasion to request him to name 
 the time and place when and where it would suit the conven- 
 ience of the Secretary of State to receive them. 
 
40 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Mr. Wehstei' to the Maine Commissioners. 
 
 President's Square, Jwree 12, 1842. 
 
 Mr. Webster has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
 the note of the commissioners of Maine announcing their ar- 
 rival, and their readiness to enter on the business of their ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 Mr. W. will have great pleasure in receiving the commis- 
 sioners at the Department of State on Monday at one o'clock. 
 
 Commissioners of Massachusetts to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, June 13, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the State 
 of Massachusetts to confer with the government of the United 
 States upon a conventional line to be established on our north- 
 eastern boundary, are ready to proceed in the execution of 
 their commission whenever the secretary my signify his wish 
 to meet them. Our colleague (Mr. Allen) will probably be 
 here to-morrow. 
 
 We have the honor to remain, with the highest respect, 
 your obedient servants, 
 
 Abbott Lawrence, 
 John Mills. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the Commissioners of Massachusetts. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, Jimc 13, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
 of the communication addressed to him this day by Messrs. 
 Lawrence and Mills, commissioners of the commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts. He will be happy to see these gentlemen at 
 this department at half past one o'clock P.M. to-day. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Messrs. Lawrence and Mills, 
 
 Commissioners of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, June 17. 1842. 
 
 Lord Ashburton having been charged by the queen's gov- 
 ernment with full powers to negotiate and settle all matters in 
 discussion between the United States and England, and hav- 
 ing, on his arrival at Washington, announced that, in relation to 
 the question of the northeastern boundary of the United States, 
 he was authorized to treat for a conventional line, or line by 
 agreement, on such terms and conditions and with such mu- 
 tual considerations and equivalents as might be thought just 
 and equitable, and that he was ready to enter upon a negotia- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 41 
 
 tion for such conventional line so soon as this government should 
 say that it was authorized and ready on its part to commence 
 such negotiation, the undersigned, Secretary of State of the 
 United States, has now the honor to acquaint his lordship, by 
 direction of the President, that the undersigned is ready, on be- 
 half of the government of the United States, and duly author- 
 ized to proceed to the consideration of such conventional line, 
 or line by agreement, and will be happy to have an interview 
 on that subject at his lordship's convenience. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to tender to 
 Lord Ashburton assurances of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, June 17, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, plenipotentiary of her Britannic majesty 
 OR an extraordinary and special mission to the United States 
 of America, has the honor of acknowledging, with much satis- 
 faction, the communication received this day from Mr. Web- 
 ster, Secretary of State of the United States, that he is ready, 
 on behalf of the United States, and duly authorized, in relation 
 to the question of the northeastern boundary of the United 
 States, to proceed to the consideration of a conventional line, 
 or line by agreement, on such terms and conditions, and with 
 such mutual considerations and equivalents as might be thought 
 just and equitable. And in reply to Mr. Webster's invitation 
 to the undersigned to fix some time for their first conference 
 upon this subject, he begs to propose to call on Mr. Webster at 
 the Department of State to-morrow at 12 o'clock for this pur- 
 pose, should that time be perfectly convenient to Mr. Webster. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
 Mr. Webster of* his distinguished consideration. 
 
 Ashburton. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Two or three letters between Mr. Webster and Lord Ash- 
 burton respecting the new line of the northeastern boundary 
 are omitted, as being principally confined to questions local in 
 their nature, and not now of public interest. 
 
 For the same reason, a letter from the Governor of Maine 
 to Mr. Webster, of the 29th of June, is omitted. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the Maine Comjnissioners. 
 
 Department of State, WasJdngton, July 15, 1842. 
 
 Gentlemen, — You have had an opportunity of reading Lord 
 Ashburton's note to me of the lllh of July. Since that date I 
 
42 DIPLOMATIC ANU OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 have had full and frequent conferences with him respecting 
 the eastern boundary, and believe I understand what is prac- 
 ticable to be done on that subject, so far as he is concerned. 
 In these conferences he has made no positive or binding prop- 
 osition, thinking, perhaps, it would be more desirable, under 
 present circumstances, that such proposition should proceed 
 from the side of the United States. I have reason to believe, 
 however, that he would agree to a line of boundary between 
 the United States and the British provinces of Canada and New 
 Brunswick, such as is described in a paper accompanying this 
 (marked B), and identified by my signature. 
 
 In establishing the line between the monument and the St. 
 John, it is thought necessary to adhere to that run and marked 
 by the surveyors of the two governments in 1817 and 1818. 
 There is no doubt that the line recently run by Major Graham 
 is more entirely accurate ; but, being an exparte line, there 
 would be objections to agreeing to it without examination, and 
 thus another survey would become necessary. Grants and set- 
 tlements, also, have been made in conformity with the former 
 line, and its errors are so inconsiderable that it is not thought 
 that their correction is a sufficient object to disturb these set- 
 tlements. Similar considerations have had great weight in ad- 
 justing the line in other parts of it. 
 
 The territory in dispute between the two countries contains 
 12,027 square miles, equal to 7,097,280 acres. 
 
 By the line described in the accompanying paper, there will 
 be assigned to the United States 7015 square miles, equal to 
 4,489,000 acres ; and to England 5012 square miles, equal to 
 3,207,080 acres. 
 
 By the award of the King of the Netherlands, there was as- 
 signed to the United States 7908 square miles, 5,001,120 acres ; 
 to England 4119 square miles, 2,030,100 acres. 
 
 The territory proposed to be relinquished to England south 
 of the line of the King of the Netherlands is, as you will see, 
 the mountain range from the upper part of the St. Francis River 
 to the meeting of the two contested lines of boundary, at the 
 Metjarmette Portage, in the highlands, near the source of the 
 St. John. This mountain tract contains 893 square miles, 
 equal to 571,520 acres. It is supposed to be of no value for 
 cultivation or settlement. On this point you will see here- 
 with a letter from Captain Talcott, who has been occupied two 
 summers in exploring the line of the highlands, and is intimate- 
 ly acquainted with the territory. The line leaves to the Uni- 
 ted States, between the base of the hills and the left bank of 
 the St. John, and lying along upon the river, a territory of 
 657,280 acres, embracing, without doubt, all the valuable land 
 south of the St. Francis and west of the St. John. Of the gen- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 43 
 
 eral division of the territory, it is believed it may be safely said, 
 that while the portion remaining with the United States is, in 
 quantity, seven twelfths, in value it is at least four fifths of the 
 whole. 
 
 Nor is it supposed that the possession of the mountain region 
 is of any importance in connection with the defense of the coun- 
 try or any military operations. It lies below all the accus- 
 tomed practicable passages for troops into and out of Lower 
 Canada ; that is to say, the Chaudiere, Lake Champlain, and 
 the Richelieu, and the St. Lawrence. If an army, with its ma- 
 teriel, could possibly pass into Canada over these mountains, it 
 would only find itself on the banks of the St. Lawrence helow 
 Quebec ; and, on the other hand, it is not conceivable that an 
 invading enemy from Lower Canada would attempt a passage 
 in this direction, leaving the Chaudiere on one hand and the 
 route by Madawaska on the other. 
 
 If this line should be agreed to on the part of the United 
 States, I suppose that the British minister would, as an equiv- 
 alent, stipulate, first, for the use of the River St. John, for the 
 conveyance of the timber growing on any of its branches, to 
 tide-water, free from all discriminating tolls, impositions, or in- 
 abilities of any kind, the timber enjoying all the privileges of 
 British colonial timber. All opinions concur that this privilege 
 of navigation must greatly enhance the value of the territory 
 and the timber growing thereon, and prove exceedingly useful 
 to the people of Maine. Second. That Rouse's Point, in Lake 
 Champlain, and the lands heretofore supposed to be within the 
 limits of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but which 
 a correct ascertainment of the 45th parallel of latitude shows 
 to be in Canada, should be surrendered to the United States. 
 
 It is probable, also, that the disputed line of boundary in Lake 
 Superior might be so adjusted as to leave a disputed island 
 within the United States. 
 
 These cessions on the part of England would enure partly to 
 the benefit of the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 
 York, but principally to the United States. The consideration 
 on the part of England, for making them, would be the manner 
 agreed upon for adjusting the eastern boundary. The price of 
 the cession, therefore, whatever it might be, would in fairness 
 belong to the two states interested in the manner of that adjust- 
 ment. 
 
 Under the influence of these considerations, I am authorized 
 to say, that if the commissioners of the two states assent to the 
 line as described in the accompanying paper, the United States 
 will undertake to pay to these states the sum of two hundred 
 and fifty thousand dollars, to be divided between them in equal 
 moieties ; and also to undertake for the settlement and pay- 
 
44 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ment of the expenses incurred by those states for the mainte- 
 nance of the civil posse, and also for a survey which it was 
 found necessary to make. 
 
 The line suggested, with the compensations and equivalents 
 which have been stated, is now submitted for your considera- 
 tion. That it is all which might have been hoped for, looking 
 to the strength of the American claim, can hardly be said. But, 
 as the settlement of a controversy of such duration is a matter 
 of high importance, as equivalents of undoubted value are of- 
 fered, as longer postponement and delay would lead to further 
 inconvenience, and to the incurring of further expenses, and 
 as no better occasion, or, perhaps, any other occasion, for set- 
 tling the boundary by agreement, and on the principle of equiv- 
 alents, is ever likely to present itself, the government of the 
 United States hopes that the commissioners of the two states 
 will find it to be consistent with their duty to assent to the line 
 proposed, and to the terms and conditions attending the prop- 
 osition. 
 
 The President has felt the deepest anxiety for an amicable 
 settlement of the question in a manner honorable to the coun- 
 try, and such as should preserve the rights and interests of the 
 states concerned. From the moment of the announcement of 
 Lord Ashburton's mission, he has sedulously endeavored to 
 pursue a course the most respectful toward the states, and the 
 most useful to their interests, as well as the most becoming to 
 the character and dignity of the government. He will be hap- 
 py if the result shall be such as shall satisfy Maine and Mas- 
 sachusetts, as well as the rest of the country. With these sen- 
 timents on the part of the President, and with the conviction that 
 no more advantageous arrangement can be made, the subject is 
 now referred to the grave deliberation of the commissioners. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 The Hon. the Commissioners of Maine. 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington. July IG, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — There is a further question of disputed boundary be- 
 tween Great Britain and the United States, called the north- 
 west boundary, about which we have had some conferences ; 
 and I now proceed to state the terms which I am ready to 
 agree to for the settlement of this difterence. As the principal 
 object in dispute is to be given up by Great Britain, I trust, sir, 
 that you will here again recognize the spirit of friendly con- 
 ciliation which has guided my government in disposing of 
 these questions. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 45 
 
 I have already sufficiently discussed with you the bounda- 
 ries between her majesty's provinces and the United States, 
 from the monument at the head of the River St. Croix to the 
 monument on the River St. Lawrence, near the village of St. 
 Regis. 
 
 The commissioners under the sixth article of the Treaty of 
 Ghent succeeded in continuing this boundary from St. Regis 
 through the St. Lawrence and the great northern lakes, up to 
 a point in the channel between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. 
 
 A further continuation of this boundary, from this point 
 through Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, was con- 
 fided to the same commissioners under the seventh article of 
 the Treaty of Ghent, but they were, unfortunately, unable to 
 agree, and have consequently left this portion of the boundary 
 undetermined. Its final settlement has been much desired by 
 both governments, and urgently pressed by communications 
 from Mr. Secretary Forsyth to Mr. Fox, in 1839 and 1840. 
 
 What I have now to propose can not, I feel assured, be oth- 
 erwise than satisfactory for this purpose. 
 
 The commissioners who failed in their endeavors to make 
 this settlement differed on two points : 
 
 First. As to the appropriation of an island called St. George's 
 Island, lying in the water communication between Lake Hu- 
 ron and Lake Superior ; and, 
 
 Secondly. As to the boundary through the water communi- 
 cations from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods. 
 
 The first point I am ready to give up to you, and you are 
 no doubt aware that it is the only object of any real value in 
 this controversy. The Island of St. George is reported to 
 contain 25,920 acres of very fertile land ; but, the other things 
 connected with these boundaries being satisfactorily arranged, 
 a line shall be drawn so as to throw this island within the lim- 
 its of the United States. 
 
 In considering the second point, it really appears of little 
 importance to either party how the line be determined through 
 the wild country between Lake Superior and the Lake of the 
 Woods, but it is important that some line should be fixed and 
 known. 
 
 The American commissioner asked for the line from Lake 
 Superior up the River Kamanastiguia to the lake called Dog 
 Lake, which he supposed to be the same as that called Long 
 Lake in the treaties, thence through Sturgeon Lake to the Lac 
 la Pluie, to that point where the two lines assumed by the com- 
 missioners again meet. 
 
 The British commissioner, on the other hand, contended for 
 a line from the southwestern extremity, at a point called Le 
 Fond da Lac, to the middle of the mouth of the estuary, or lake, 
 
46 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of St. Louis River, thence up that river through Vermilion 
 River to Lac la Pluie. 
 
 Attempts were made to compromise these differences, but 
 they failed, apparently more from neither party being willing 
 to give up the Island of St. George, than from much import- 
 ance being attached to any other part of the case. 
 
 Upon the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the "Woods, 
 both commissioners agreed to abandon their respective claims, 
 and to adopt a middle course, for which the American com- 
 missioner admitted that there was some ground of preference. 
 This was from Pigeon River, a point between Kamanastiguia 
 and the Fond du Lac ; and although there were differences as 
 to the precise point near the mouth of Pigeon River where the 
 line should begin, neither party seemed to have attached much 
 importance to this part of the subject. 
 
 I would propose that the line be taken from a point about 
 six miles south of Pigeon River, where the Grand Portage 
 commences on the lake, and continued along the line of said 
 Portage, alternately by land and water, to Lac la Pluie, the 
 existing route by land and by water remaining common to both 
 parties. This line has the advantage of being known, and at- 
 tended with no doubt or uncertainty in running it. 
 
 In making the important concession on this boundary of the 
 Isle of St. Geoi'ge, I must attach a condition to it of accommo- 
 dation, which experience has proved to be necessary in the 
 navigation of the great waters which bound the two countries 
 — an accommodation which can, I apprehend, be no possible 
 inconvenience to either. This was asked by the British com- 
 missioner in the course of the attempts of compromise above 
 alluded to ; but nothing was done, because he was not then pre- 
 pared, as I am now, to yield the property and sovereignty of 
 St. George's Island. 
 
 The first of these two cases is at the head of Lake St. Clair, 
 where the river of that name empties into it from Lake Huron. 
 It is represented that the channel bordering the United States 
 coast in this part is not only the best for navigation, but, with 
 some winds, is the only serviceable passage. I do not know 
 that, under such circumstances, the passage of a British vessel 
 would be refused ; but, on a final settlement of boundaries, it 
 is desirable to stipulate for what the commissioners would 
 probably have settled had the facts been known to them. 
 
 The other case, of nearly the same description, occurs on 
 the St. Lawrence, some miles above the boundary at St. Regis. 
 In distributing the islands of the river by the commissioners, 
 Barnhart's Island and the Long Sault Islands were assigned to 
 America. This part of the river has very formidable rapids, 
 and the only safe passage is on the southern or American side, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 47 
 
 between those islands and the main-land. We want a clause 
 in our present treaty to say that, for a short distance, viz., from 
 the upper end of Upper Long Sault Island to the lower end of 
 Barnhart's Island, the several channels of the river shall be 
 used in common by the boatmen of the two countries. 
 
 I am not aware that these very reasonable demands are 
 likely to meet with any objection, especially where the United 
 States will have surrendered to them all that is essential in 
 the boundary I have now to propose to you. 
 
 I beg you will be assured, sir, of my unfeigned and distin- 
 guished consideration. 
 
 AsHBURTON. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c , &c. 
 
 Commissioners of Massachusetts to M7\ Webster. 
 
 Washington, Juli/ 20, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 communication of the 15th of July, addressed to us as commis- 
 sioners of Massachusetts, authorized to act in her behalf in 
 the settlement of the controversy concerning the northeastern 
 boundary of the United States. The proposal therein present- 
 ed for our assent, in behalf of the government we represent, to 
 the establishment of the conventional boundary indicated in 
 your communication, and upon the terms and equivalents there- 
 in set forth, has received our faithful consideration, and, with- 
 out further delay, we submit the following reply : 
 
 After the many interviews which we have had the pleasure 
 to hold with you during the progress of the negotiation, which 
 is drawing to its close, it is unnecessary for us to express our 
 full concurrence in the sentiment that the line suggested, with 
 its compensations and equivalents, is not all which might have 
 been hoped for, in view of the strength of the American claim 
 to the territory in dispute. But inasmuch as in the progress 
 of the negotiation, conducted with great deliberation, every 
 proposition has been put forth which any party, in whatever 
 manner and to whatever extent it may be interested, has been 
 disposed to submit for consideration and adoption, and the ul- 
 timate point has been reached at which negotiation must re- 
 sult in a compact, or the interruption of further effort for its 
 accomplishment, we proceed to discharge the remaining duty 
 which is devolved upon us. 
 
 We ai-e fully aware of the importance of the act that we are 
 called upon to perform. It is not less than the relinquishment, 
 by the commonwealth of Massachusetts, of territory which she 
 has always claimed to be a part of her possessions, and to 
 which she believes she has a clear and indisputable title. So 
 strong is the conviction of the right of Massachusetts and Maine 
 
48 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 to the undisturbed enjoyment of the land constituting what is 
 called the disputed territory, by force of the treaty which term- 
 inated the war of the Revolution, that she would prefer an ap- 
 peal to the same arbitrament by which the acknowledgment 
 of her right was originally obtained, to a surrender, without 
 just equivalents, of any portion of that territory. Still she is 
 aware that the government and people of the United States 
 desire to preserve peace and friendly relations with other na- 
 tions, so long as they can be maintained with honor, by con- 
 cessions which not a just policy alone, but that which is liberal 
 and magnanimous, may require. She partakes of the common 
 spirit, and its influence pervades all her action throughout this 
 negotiation. 
 
 There are other considerations of weight in the decision of 
 this question. Though the title of Massachusetts to the lands 
 in dispute is believed to be perfect, it is not to be overlooked 
 that they have been the subject of controversy through many 
 years ; that attempts, by negotiation and through the interven- 
 tion of an umpire, have been unsuccessfully made to extinguish 
 a conflicting claim ; and that the nations which are now seek- 
 ing by renewed negotiations to put a period to the protract- 
 ed strife, while desiring peace, have been brought to the verge 
 of destructive war, through dissensions incident to a disputed 
 boundary. Should this negotiation fail of a successful issue, 
 the alternative offered is a renewed submission of our rights to 
 the determination of others. Past experience enforces the be- 
 lief that other years must elapse, and great inconvenience be 
 felt, before a decision can be obtained ; and the same monitor 
 suggests the obvious truth, that however the title of Massa- 
 chusetts and Maine, and of the United States, may be firmly 
 established in justice, it is not equally certain that it would be 
 confirmed by the tribunal, from whose decision, whatever it 
 might be, no appeal could honorably be taken. 
 
 But the considerations which must powerfully impel the 
 state of Massachusetts to acquiesce in the terms of a treaty 
 that your communication indicates are, the known desire of 
 the people of the United States for a speedy settlement of the 
 vexed question of the boundary, and the request of the general 
 government, expressed through its constitutional organs, that 
 Massachusetts would yield her consent to an arrangement 
 which that government deems to be reasonable. The state 
 we have the honor to represent would be slow to disappoint 
 the hopes of the nation, and reluctant to reject terms which the 
 government of the United States urges her to accept, as being 
 compatible, in the estimation of that government, with the in- 
 terests of the state, and essential to the complete adjustment 
 of difficulties which the security of national peace demands. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 49 
 
 Whether the national boundary suggested by you be suita- 
 ble or unsuitable, whether the compensations that Great Britain 
 offers to the United States for the territory conceded to her be 
 adequate or inadequate, and whether the treaty which shall be 
 effected shall be honorable to the country or incompatible with 
 its rights and dignity, are questions not for Massachusetts, but 
 for the general government, upon its responsibility to the whole 
 country, to decide. It is for the state to determine for what 
 equivalents she will relinquish to the United States her interests 
 in certain lands in the disputed territory, so that they may be 
 made available to the government of the United States in the 
 establishment of the northeastern boundary, and in a general 
 settlement of all matters in controversy between Great Britain 
 and the United States. In this view of the subject, and with 
 the understanding that by the words " the nearest point of the 
 highlands," in your description of the proposed line of boundary, 
 is meant the nearest point of the crest of the highlands ; that 
 the right to the free navigation of the River St. John shall in- 
 clude the right to the free transportation thereupon of all prod- 
 ucts of the soil as well as of the forest ; and that the pecuniary 
 compensation to be paid by the Federal government to the 
 state of Massachusetts shall be increased to the sum of one 
 hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the state of Massachusetts, 
 through her commissioners, hereby relinquishes to the United 
 States her interest in the lands which will be excluded from 
 the dominion of the United States by the establishment of the 
 boundary aforesaid. 
 
 We have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient 
 servants, 
 
 Abbot Lawrence, 
 John Mills, 
 Charles Allen. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 The Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 22, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The undersigned, commissioners of the state of Maine 
 on the subject of the northeastern boundary, have the honor 
 to acknowledge the receipt of your note, addressed to them 
 under date of the 15th instant, with inclosures therein referred 
 to. The proposition first submitted by the special minister of 
 Great Britain, on the subject of the boundary, having been dis- 
 agreed to, and the proposition made on the part of the United 
 States, with the assent oi the commissioners of Maine and 
 Massachusetts, having been rejected as inadmissible, coupled 
 with an expression of surprise that it should have been made ; 
 and Lord Ashburton, in the same communication, having in- 
 
 D 
 
50 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 timated a preference for conference rather than correspond- 
 ence, and having omitted in his note to make any new propo- 
 sition, except a quaUfied withdrawal of a part of his former 
 one, we learn from your note that you " have had full and 
 frequent conferences with him respecting the northeastern 
 boundary," and that you " believe you understand what is 
 practicable to be done on that subject, so far as he (Lord Ash- 
 burton) is concerned." We also learn, that " in these confer- 
 ences he has made no positive or binding proposition, thinking, 
 perhaps, it would he more desirable, under present circum- 
 stances, that such a proposition should proceed from the side 
 of the United States ;" but that you have reason to believe that 
 he would agree to a line of boundary such as is described in 
 the paper accompanying your note (marked B) ; and, also, that 
 you entertain the conviction " that no more advantageous ar- 
 rangement can be made ;" and, with this conviction, you refer 
 the subject to the grave deliberation of the commissioners. 
 
 Regarding this as substantially a proposition on the part of 
 the United States, with the knowledge and assent of Great 
 Britain, and as the one most favorable to us which, under any 
 circumstances, the latter government would either offer or ac- 
 cept, the undersigned have not failed to bestow upon it the 
 grave deliberation and consideration which its nature and im- 
 portance, and their own responsible position, demand. If the 
 result of that deliberation should not fully justify the expressed 
 hopes or meet the expectations and views of the government 
 of the United States, we beg you to be assured that such failure 
 will be the result of their firm convictions of duty to the state 
 they represent, and will not arise from any want of an anxious, 
 desire, on their part, to bring the controversy to an amicable, 
 just, and honorable termination. In coming to this considera- 
 tion, they have not been unmindful that the state of Maine, 
 with the firmest conviction of her absolute right to the whole 
 territory drawn into controversy, and sustained, as she has 
 been, by the unanimous concurrence of her sister states, and 
 of the government of the Union, repeatedly expressed and 
 cordially given, and without a wavering doubt as to the per- 
 fect practicability of marking the treaty line upon the face of 
 the earth, according to her claim, has yet at all times mani- 
 fested a spirit of forbearance and patience under what she 
 could not but deem unfounded pretensions, and unwarrantable 
 delays, and irritating encroachments. In the midst of all the 
 provocations to resistance, and to the assertion and mainte- 
 nance of her extreme rights, she has never forgotten that she is 
 a member of the Union, and she has endeavored to deserve the 
 respect, sympathy, and co-operation of her sister states, by 
 pursuing a course equally removed from pusillanimity and 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 51 
 
 rashness, and by maintaining her difficult position in a spirit 
 that would forbear much for peace, but would yield nothing 
 through fear. At all times, and under all circumstances, she 
 has been ready and anxious to bring the controversy to a close 
 upon terms honorable and equitable, and to unite in any proper 
 scheme to effect that object. In this spirit, and with these 
 convictions, Maine instantly and cheerfully acceded to the pro- 
 posal of the general government, made through you, to appoint 
 commissioners. 
 
 That no obstacle might be interposed to the successful issue 
 of this negotiation, her Legislature gave to her commissioners 
 ample and unlimited powers, which, but for the presumed ne- 
 cessity of the case, her people would be slow to yield to any 
 functionaries. Her commissioners, thus appointed and thus 
 empowered, assumed the duties imposed upon them in the 
 spirit and with the views of the government and people of 
 Maine. They came to the negotiation with a firm conviction 
 of her rights, but With a disposition and determination to meet 
 a conciliatory proposition for a conventional line in a similar 
 spirit, and to yield, for any reasonable equivalent, all that they 
 presumed would be asked or desired by the other party. 
 They, with the other citizens of Maine, were not unapprised 
 of the fact so often alluded to in our former communications, 
 that England had long been anxious to obtain the undisputed 
 possession of that portion of the territory which would enable 
 her to maintain a direct and uninterrupted communication be- 
 tween her provinces. So far as they could learn from any 
 source, this was the only professed object she had in view, and 
 the only one which had been regarded as in contemplation. 
 
 With this understanding, the undersigned at once decided 
 to yield, upon the most liberal terms, this long-sought con- 
 venience ; and they indulged the confident expectation that 
 such a concession would at once meet all the wants and wishes 
 of the English government, and bring the mission to a speedy 
 and satisfactory close. When, therefore, we were met at the 
 outset by a proposition which required the cession, on our part, 
 of all the territory north of the St. John's River, and enough of 
 the territory on the south to include the Madawaska settlement, 
 extending at least fifty miles up that river, with no other 
 equivalents to us than the limited right to float timber down 
 that river, and to the United States the small tracts adjacent 
 to the 45th parallel of latitude in other states, we could not but 
 express our regret to be thus, as it were, repelled. But re- 
 garding this rather as the extreme limit of a claim subject, not- 
 withstanding the strong language of Lord Ashburton, to be 
 restrained and limited, we deemed it proper, in our communi- 
 cation of the 16th instant, after declining to accede to the 
 
52 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPERS. 
 
 proposition, in conjunction with the commissioners of Massachu- 
 setts, to point out and offer a conventional hne of boundary as 
 therein specified. In fixing on this Hne, we were mainly anx- 
 ious to select such a one as should at once and pre-eminently 
 give to Great Britain all that was necessary for her understood 
 object, and to preserve to Maine the remainder of her territory. 
 To accomplish this object, we departed from the river to se- 
 cure the unobstructed use of the accustomed way from Quebec 
 to Halifax. We are not aware that any objection has been 
 made from any quarter to this line, as not giving up to Great 
 Britain all that she needed, or could reasonably ask, for the 
 above purpose. And although Lord Ashburton did not deem 
 it necessary to " examine the line (proposed) in its precise de- 
 tails," or to look at a map on which it could most readily be 
 traced, and although he has seen fit to saj that he was " quite 
 at a loss to account for such a proposal," yet he has not in- 
 timated that the line suggested fails in any respect to meet the 
 object we had in view, and which we frankly and readily 
 avowed. It is well known to you, sir, that we had determined 
 upon no such inflexible adherence to that exact demarkation as 
 would have prevented us from changing it, upon any reasona- 
 ble evidence that it did not in every respect meet the require- 
 ments of the above stated proposition in relation to a perfect 
 line of communication. But believing then, as we do now, that 
 it did thus meet all these requirements, and although it was, as 
 we feel bound to say, the general and confident expectation of 
 the people of Maine, that any relinquishment on our part of 
 jurisdiction and territory would be, in part at least, compen- 
 sated from that strip of contiguous territory on the west bank 
 of the St. .John's, yet, when we were solemnly assured that no 
 such cession could be made under his lordship's instructions, 
 we forbore to press for this reasonable and just exchange, and 
 contented ourselves with accepting the limited right of naviga- 
 tion of the river, as the only equivalent from Great Britain for 
 the territory and jurisdiction we offered to surrender ; and, as 
 you will remark, we offered not merely a right of way on land 
 for a similar easement on the water, but the entire and abso- 
 lute title to the land and jurisdiction of the large tract north 
 and east of the line specified. It can not be denied that it pre- 
 serves to us a frontier in a forest almost impenetrable on the 
 north, which would defend itself by its own natural character, 
 and that if any thing should be deducted from the agricultural 
 value of that portion beyond the Madawaska settlements, on 
 account of its ruggedness and its want of attraction to settlers, 
 much may justly be added to its value as a boundary between 
 the two nations. 
 
 The value of this tract to Great Britain, both in a civil and 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 53 
 
 military point of view, can not be overlooked. It gives her 
 the much-coveted route for the movement of troops in war, and 
 her mails and passengers in peace, and is most particularly 
 important in case of renewed outbreaks in her North Ameri- 
 can colonies. The assumption of jui'isdiction in the Mada- 
 waska settlement, and the pertinacity with which it has been 
 maintained, are practical evidence of the value attached to the 
 tract by the government of her Britannic majesty. 
 
 We have alluded to these views of the value and importance 
 of this territory not with any design of expressing our regret 
 that we have thus offered it, but to show that we are fully 
 aware of all these views and circumstances affecting the ques- 
 tion, and that we duly appreciate the far-seeing sagacity and 
 prudence of those British statesmen who so early attempted to 
 secure it as a cession, by negotiation, and the suggestion of 
 equivalents. 
 
 The answer of Lord Ashburton to your note of the 8th in- 
 stant contained a distinct rejection of our offer, with a sub- 
 stantial withdrawal of his claim to any territory south of the 
 River St. John, but not modifying the claim for the relinquish- 
 ment, on the part of Maine and the United States, of all north 
 of that river. Our views in reference to many of the topics in 
 his lordship's reply we have had the honor heretofore to com- 
 municate to you in our note of the 16th instant ; and to that 
 answer we would now refer, as forming an important part of 
 this negotiation, and as containing our refusal of the line indi- 
 cated. We are now called upon to consider the final proposi- 
 tion made by or through the government of the United States 
 for our consideration and acceptance. The line indicated may 
 be shortly defined as the line recommended by the King of the 
 Netherlands, and an addition thereto of a strip of land at the 
 base of the highlands, running to the source of the southwest 
 branch of the St. John. The examination and consideration 
 of all other lines, which might better meet our views and ob- 
 jects, have been precluded by the declaration, and other plenary 
 evidence we have, that the line specified in your communica- 
 tion is the most advantageous that can be offered to us ; and 
 that no one of less extent, or yielding, in fact, less to the other 
 party, can be deemed admissible. We are, therefore, brought 
 to the single and simple consideration of the question whether 
 we can, consistently with our views of our duty to the state 
 we represent, accept the proposition submitted by you. 
 
 So far as any claim is interposed, based upon a supposed 
 equity arising from the recommendation of the King of the 
 Netherlands, we have only to refer to our former note for our 
 views on that topic. We have now only to add, that we came 
 to this conference untrammeled and free, to see if, in a spirit 
 
54 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of amity and equity, we could not find and agree upon some 
 new line which, while it yielded all that was needed by one 
 party, might fairly be the motive and ground-work for equiva- 
 lent territory or rights granted to the other ; and that we can not 
 make any admission or consent to any proposition which would 
 not revive, but put vitality and power into that which, up to 
 this time, has never possessed either. We base our whole ac- 
 tion on grounds entirely independent of that advice of the 
 arbiter. 
 
 It may possibly be intimated in this connection, as it has 
 more than once been heretofore, that the commissioners of 
 Maine and the people of.that state are disposed to regard the 
 whole territory as clearly falling within their rightful limits, 
 and are not willing to consider the question as one in doubt 
 and dispute, and, therefore, one to be settled as if each party 
 had nearly or quite equal claims. Certainly, sir, the people 
 and government of Maine do not deny that the question has 
 been drawn into dispute. They have had too many and too 
 recent painful evidences of that fact to allow such a doubt, 
 however much at a loss they may be to perceive any just or 
 tenable grounds on which the adversary claim is based. For 
 years they have borne and forborne, and struggled to maintain 
 their rights, in a peaceable and yet unflinching spirit, against 
 what appeared to them injustice from abroad and neglect at 
 home. But they have yet to learn that the mere fact that an 
 adverse claim is made and persisted in, and maintained by in- 
 genuity and ability for a series of years, and increasing in ex- 
 tent and varying its grounds as years roll on, is to be regard- 
 ed as a reason why courtesy should require, in opposition to 
 the fact, a relinquishment of the plain, explicit, and sincere 
 language of perfect conviction and unwavering confidence, or 
 that a continued, adverse, and resisted claim may yet, by mere 
 lapse of time and reiteration, ripen into a right. But we desire 
 it to be distinctly remembered that, in this attempt to negotiate 
 for a conventional line, Maine has not insisted, or even request- 
 ed, that any formal or virtual admission of her title to the 
 whole territory should be a condition preliminary to a settle- 
 ment. We hold, and we claim, the right to express at all 
 times, and in all suitable places, our opinion of the perfect 
 right of Maine to the whole territory ; but we have never as- 
 sumed it as a point of honor that our adversary should ac- 
 knowledge it. Indeed, we have endeavored to view the sub- 
 ject rather in reference to a settlement, on even hard terms for 
 us, than to dwell on the strong aspect of the case, when we 
 look at the naked question of our right and title under the 
 treaty. It could hardly be expected, however, that we should 
 silently, and thus virtually, acquiesce in any assumption that 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 55 
 
 our claim was unsustained, and that " the treaty Hne was not 
 executable." On this point we expressed ourselves fully in a 
 former note. 
 
 In returning to the direct consideration of the last proposi- 
 tion, and the terms and conditions attending it, in justice to 
 ourselves and our state, we feel bound to declare, and we con- 
 fidently appeal to you, sir, in confirmation of the declaration, 
 that this negotiation has been conducted, on our part, with no 
 mercenary views, and with no design to extort unreasonable 
 equivalents or extravagant compensation. The state of Maine 
 has always felt an insuperable repugnance to parting with any 
 portion even of her disputed territory for mere pecuniary 
 recompense from adverse claimants. She comes here for no 
 mere bargain for the sale of acres, in the spirit or with the arts 
 of traffic. Her commissioners have been much less anxious to 
 secure benefit and recompense than to preserve the state from 
 unnecessary curtailment and dismemberment. The proposi 
 tion we made is evidence of the fact. We have heretofore 
 expressed some opinions of the mutual character of the bene- 
 fits to each party from the free navigation of the St, John. 
 Without entering, however, upon the particular consideration 
 of the terms and conditions, which we have not thought it nec- 
 essary to do, we distinctly state that our great repugnance to 
 the line is based upon the extent of territory required to be 
 yielded. We may, however, in passing, remark that all the 
 pecuniary offers contained in your note, most liberally con- 
 strued, would scarcely recompense and repay to Maine the 
 amount of money and interest which she has actually expend- 
 ed in defending and protecting the territory from wrongs 
 arising and threatened by reason of its condition and disputed 
 ground. 
 
 Considering, then, this proposition as involving the surrender 
 of more territory than the avowed objects of England require, 
 as removing our landmarks from the well-known and well-de- 
 fined boundary of the treaty of 1783, the crest of the highlands, 
 besides insisting upon the line of the arbiter in its full extent, we 
 feel bound to say, after the most careful and anxious consider- 
 ation, that we can not bring our minds to the conviction that 
 the proposal is such as Maine had a right to expect. 
 
 But we are not unaware of the expectations which have been 
 and still are entertained of a favorable issue to this negotiation 
 by the government and people of this country, and the great 
 disappointment which wo\ild be felt and expressed at its failure. 
 Nor are we unmindful of the future, warned as we have been 
 by the past, that any attempts to determine the line by arbitra- 
 tion may be either fruitless, or with a result more to be de- 
 plored. 
 
56 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 We are now given to understand that the executive of the 
 United States, representing the sovereignty of the Union, as- 
 sents to the proposal, and that this department of the govern- 
 ment, at least, is anxious for its acceptance, as, in its view, most 
 expedient for the general good. 
 
 The commissioners of Massachusetts have already given 
 their assent on behalf of that commonwealth. Thus situated, 
 the commissioners of Maine, invoking the spirit of attachment 
 and patriotic devotion of their state to the Union, and being 
 willing to yield to the deliberate convictions of her sister states 
 as to the path of duty, and to interpose no obstacles to an ad- 
 justment which the general judgment of the nation shall pro- 
 nounce as honorable and expedient, even if that judgment shall 
 lead to a surrender of a portion of the birth-right of the people 
 of their state, and prized by them because it is their birth-right, 
 have determined to overcome their objections to the proposal 
 so far as to say, that if, upon mature consideration, the Senate 
 of the United States shall advise and consent to the ratification 
 of a treaty, corresponding in its terms with your proposal, and 
 with the conditions in our memorandum accompanying this 
 note (marked A), and identified by our signatures, they, by 
 virtue of the power vested in them by the resolves of the 
 Legislature of Maine, give the assent of that state to such con- 
 ventional line, with the terms, conditions, and equivalents 
 herein mentioned. | 
 
 We have the honor to be, sir, with high respect, your obe- 
 dient servants, 
 
 Edward Kavanagh, 
 Edward Kent, 
 John Otis, 
 William P. Preble. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c, &c., &c. 
 
 The commissioners of Maine request that the following pro- 
 visions, or the substance thereof, shall be incorporated into the 
 proposed treaty, should one be agreed on : 
 
 1st. That the amount of "the disputed territory fund" (so 
 called) received by the authorities of New Brunswick, for tim- 
 ber cut on the disputed territory, shall be paid over to the 
 United States, for the use of Maine and Massachusetts, in 
 full, and a particular account rendered ; or a gross sum, to be 
 agreed upon by the commissioners of Maine and Massachu- 
 setts, shall be paid by Great Britain as a settlement of that 
 fund; and that all claims, bonds, and securities taken for tim- 
 ber cut upon the territory be transferred to the authorities of 
 Maine and Massachusetts. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 57 
 
 2d. That all grants of land within that portion of the dis- 
 puted territory conceded to Great Britain, made by Maine and 
 Massachusetts, or either of them, shall be confirmed, and all 
 equitable possessory titles shall be quieted, to those who pos- 
 sess the claims ; and we assent to a reciprocal provision for 
 the benefit of settlers falling within the limits of Maine. And 
 we trust that the voluntary suggestion of the British minister 
 in regard to John Baker, and any others, if there be any, simi- 
 larly situated, will be carried into effect, so as to secure their 
 rights. 
 
 3d. That the right of free navigation of the St. John, as set 
 forth in the proposition of Mr. Webster, on the part of the 
 United States, shall extend to and include the products of the 
 soil, in the same manner as the products of the forest ; and that 
 no toll, tax, or duty be levied upon timber coming from the ter- 
 ritory of Maine. 
 
 Edward Kavanagh, 
 Edward Kent, 
 John Otis, 
 William P. Preble. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, July 27, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — I have now to propose to your lordship a line 
 of division embracing the disputed portions of the boundary 
 between the United States and the British provinces of New 
 Brunswick and the Canadas, with its considerations and equiv- 
 alents, such as conforms, I believe, in substance, to the result 
 of the many conferences and discussions which have taken 
 place between us. 
 
 The acknowledged territories of the United States and En- 
 gland join upon each other from the Atlantic Ocean to the 
 eastern foot of the Rocky Mountains, a distance of more than 
 three thousand miles. From the ocean to the source of the 
 St. Croix the line of division has been ascertained and fixed by 
 agreement : from the source of the St. Croix to a point near 
 St. Regis, on the River St. Lawrence, it may be considered 
 as unsettled or controverted ; from this last-mentioned point, 
 along the St. Lawrence and through the lakes, it is settled, 
 until it reaches the water communication between Lake Hu- 
 ron and Lake Superior. At this point the commissioners, un- 
 der the seventh article of the Treaty of Ghent, found a subject 
 of disagreement which they could not overcome, in deciding 
 up which branch or channel the line should proceed, till it 
 should reach a point in the middle of St. Mary's River, about 
 one mile above St. George's or Sugar Island. 
 
 From the middle of the water communication between the 
 
68 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 two lakes, at the point last mentioned, the commissioners ex- 
 tended the hne through the remaining part of that water com- 
 munication, and across Lake Superior, to a point north of He 
 Royale ; but they could not agree in what direction the line 
 should run from this last-mentioned point, nor where it should 
 leave Lake Superior, nor how it should be extended to the 
 Rainy Lake, or Lac la Pluie. From this last-mentioned lake 
 they agreed on the line to the northwesternmost point of the 
 Lake of the Woods, which they found to be in latitude 49 deg. 
 23 min. 55 sec. The line extends, according to existing treat- 
 ies, due south from this point to the 49th parallel of north lat- 
 itude, and by that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 Not being able to agree upon the whole line, the commis- 
 sioners, under the seventh article, did not make any joint report 
 to their respective governments. So far as they agreed on 
 any part of the line, that part has been considered settled ; but 
 it may be well to give validity to these portions of the line by 
 a treaty. 
 
 To complete the boundary line, therefore, and to remove all 
 doubts and disputes, it is necessary for the two governments 
 to come to an agreement on three points : 
 
 1st. What shall be the line on the northeastern and northern 
 limits of the United States, from the St. Croix to the St. Law- 
 rence ? This is by far the most important and difficult of the 
 subjects, and involves the principal questions of equivalents 
 and compensations. 
 
 2d. What shall be the course of the boundary from the point 
 where the commissioners, under the sixth article of the Treaty 
 of Ghent, terminated their labors, to wit : a point in the Nee- 
 bish Channel, near Muddy Lake, in the water communication 
 between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, to a point in the 
 middle of St. Mary's River, one mile above Sugar Island ? 
 This question is important, as it involves the ownership of that 
 island. 
 
 3d. What shall be the line from the point north of He Roy- 
 ale, in Lake Superior, to which the commissioners of the two 
 governments arrived by agreement, to the Rainy Lake ; and 
 also to confirm those parts of the line to which the said com- 
 missioners agreed ? 
 
 Besides agreeing upon the line of division through which 
 these controverted portions of the boundary pass, you have sug- 
 gested also, as the proposed settlement proceeds upon the 
 ground of compromise and equivalents, that boats belonging to 
 her majesty's subjects may pass the falls of the Long Saut, in 
 the St. Lawrence, on either side of the Long Saut Islands , 
 and that the passages between the islands lying at or near the 
 junction of the River St. Clair, with the lake of that name, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 59 
 
 shall be severally free and open to the vessels of both coun- 
 tries. There appears no reasonable objection to what is re- 
 quested in these particulars ; and on the part of the United 
 States it is desirable that their vessels, in proceeding from 
 Lake Erie into the Detroit River, should have the privilege of 
 passing between Bois Blanc, an island belonging to England, 
 and the Canadian shore, the deeper and better channel being 
 on that side. 
 
 The line, then, now proposed to be agreed to may be thus 
 described : 
 
 Beginning at the monument at the source of the River St. 
 Croix, as designated and agreed to by the commissioners, un- 
 der the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, between the govern- 
 ments of the United States and Great Britain ; thence north, 
 following the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors 
 of the two governments in the years 1817 and 1818, under the 
 fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to its intersection with the 
 River St. John, and to the middle of the channel thereof; 
 thence up the middle of the main channel of the said River St. 
 John to the mouth of the River St. Francis ; thence up the 
 middle of the channel of the said River St. Francis, and of the 
 lakes through which it flows, to the outlet of the Lake Pohe- 
 nagamook ; thence southwesterly, in a straight line, to a point 
 on the northwest branch of the River St. John, which point 
 shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, 
 in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but if the said 
 point shall be found to be less than seven miles from the near- 
 est point of the summit, or crest, of the highlands that divide 
 those rivers which empty themselves into the River St Law- 
 rence from those which fall into the River St. John, then the 
 said point shall be made to recede down the said river to a 
 point seven miles, in a straight line, from the said summit or 
 crest ; thence, in a straight line, in a course about south, eight 
 degrees west, to the point where the parallel of latitude of 46 
 degrees 25 minutes north intersects the southwest branch of 
 the St. John ; thence southerly, by the said branch, to the 
 source thereof in the highlands at the Metjarmette Portage ; 
 thence down along the said highlands which divide the waters 
 which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from 
 those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's 
 stream ; thence down the middle of said stream, till the line 
 thus run intersects the old line of boundary surveyed and 
 marked by Valentine and Collins, previously to the year 1774, 
 as the 45th degree of north latitude, and which has been known 
 and understood to be the line of actual division between the 
 states of New York and Vermont on one side, and the British 
 province of Canada on the other ; and from said point of inter- 
 
60 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 section, west, along the said dividing line, as heretofore known 
 and understood, to the Iroquois, or St. Lawrence River; and 
 from the place where the joint commissioners terminated their 
 labors under the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to wit : 
 at a point in the Neebish Channel, near Muddy Lake, the line 
 shall run into and along the ship channel between St. Joseph's 
 and St. Tammany islands, to the division of the channel at or 
 near the head of St. Joseph's Island ; thence, turning eastward- 
 ly and northwardly, around the lower end of St. Georges', or 
 Sugar Island, and following the middle of the channel which 
 divides St. George's from St. Joseph's Island ; thence up the 
 east Neebish Channel nearest to St. George's Island, through 
 the middle of Lake George ; thence west of Jonas Island, into 
 St. Mary's River, to a point in the middle of that river about 
 one mile above St. George's, or Sugar Island, so as to appro- 
 priate and assign the said island to the United States ; thence, 
 adopting the line traced on the maps by the commissioners, 
 through the River St. Mary and Lake Superior, to a point 
 north of He Royale, in said lake, one hundred yards to the 
 north and east of He Chapeau, which last-mentioned island lies 
 near the northeastern point of He Royale, where the line 
 marked by the commissioners terminates ; and from the last- 
 mentioned point, southwesterly, through the middle of the sound, 
 between He Royale and the northwestern main land, to the 
 mouth of Pigeon River, and up the said river to and through 
 the north and south Fowl lakes, to the lakes of the height of 
 land between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods ; 
 thence along the water communication to Lake Saisaginaga, 
 and through that lake ; thence to and through Cypress Lake, 
 Lac du Bois Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and 
 Lake Namecan, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, 
 or streams connecting the lakes here mentioned, to that point 
 in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudiere Falls, from 
 which the commissioners traced the line, to the most north- 
 western point of the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the 
 said line to the said most northwestern point, being in latitude 
 49_degrees, 23 minutes, 55 seconds north, and in longitude 95 
 degrees, 14 minutes, 38 seconds west from the observatory at 
 Greenwich ; thence, according to existing treaties, the line ex- 
 tends due south to its intersection with the 49th parallel of 
 north latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. 
 It being understood that all the water communications, and all 
 the usual portages, along the line from Lake Superior to the 
 Lake of the Woods, and also Grand Portage from the shore 
 of Lake Superior to the Pigeon River, as now actually used, 
 shall be free and open to the use of the subjects and citizens of 
 both countries. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 61 
 
 It is desirable to follow the description and the exact line 
 of the original treaty as far as practicable. There is reason to 
 think that "Long Lake," mentioned in the treaty of 1783, meant 
 merely the estuary of the Pigeon River, as no lake called "Long 
 Lake," or any other water strictly conforming to the idea of a 
 lake, is found in that quarter. This opinion is strengthened by 
 the fact that the words of the treaty would seem to imply that 
 the water intended as " Long Lake" was immediately joining 
 Lake Superior. In one respect, an exact compliance with the 
 words of the treaty is not practicable. There is no continuous 
 water communication between Lake Superior and the Lake 
 of the Woods, as the Lake of the Woods is known to discharge 
 its waters through the Red River of the north into Hudson's 
 Bay. The dividing height or ridge between the eastern sources 
 of the tributaries of the Lake of the Woods and the western 
 sources of Pigeon River appears, by authentic maps, to be dis- 
 tant about forty miles from the mouth of Pigeon River, on the 
 shore of Lake Superior. 
 
 It is not improbable that, in the imperfection of knowledge 
 which then existed of those remote countries, and, perhaps, mis- 
 led by Mitchell's Map, the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 
 supposed the Lake of the Woods to discharge its waters into 
 Lake Superior. The broken and difficult nature of the water 
 communication from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods 
 renders numerous portages necessary ; and it is right that 
 these water communications and these portages should make a 
 common highway, where necessary, for the use of the subjects 
 and citizens of both governments. 
 
 When the proposed line shall be properly described in the 
 treaty, the grant by England of the right to use the waters 
 of the River St. John for the purpose of transporting to the 
 mouth of that river all the timber and agricultural products 
 raised in Maine, on the waters of the St. John, or any of its 
 tributaries, without subjection to any discriminating toll, duty, 
 or disability, is to be inserted. Provision should also be made 
 for quieting and confirming the titles of all persons having 
 claims to lands on either side of the line, whether such titles be 
 perfect or inchoate only, and to the same extent in which they 
 would have been confirmed by their respective governments 
 had no change taken place. What has been agreed to, also, 
 in respect to the common use of certain passages in the rivers 
 and lakes, as already stated, must be made matter of regular 
 stipulation. 
 
 Your lordship is also informed, by the correspondence which 
 formerly took place between the two governments, that there 
 is a fund arising from the sale of timber, concerning which 
 
62 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPKRS. 
 
 fund an understanding was liad some years ago. It will be ex- 
 pedient to provide, by the treaty, that this arrangement shall 
 be carried Into eti'ect. 
 
 A proper article will be necessary to provide for the creation 
 of a commission to run and mark some parts of the line be- 
 tween Maine and the British jn'ovinces. 
 
 These several objects appear to me to embrace all respect- 
 ing the boundary line, and its equivalents, which the treaty 
 needs to contain as matters of stipulation between the United 
 States and England. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lord- 
 ship's most obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lord ASHBURTON, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Loi-d Ashbui'ton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washinotov, July 20. 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have attentively considered the statements contained 
 in the letter you did me the honor of addressing me on the 27th 
 of this month, of the terms agreed to for tiie settlement of 
 boundaries between her majesty's provinces and the United 
 States, being the final result of the many conferences we have 
 had on this subject. This settlement appears substantially cor- 
 rect in all its parts, and we may now proceed, without further 
 delay, to draw up the treaty. Several of the articles for this 
 purpose are already prepared and agreed, and our most con- 
 venient course will be to take and consider them singly. I 
 would beg leave to recommend that, as we have excellent 
 charts of the country through which the boundary which failed 
 of being settled by the commissioners under the seventh arti- 
 cle of the Treaty of Ghent is partially marked, it would be 
 advisable to make good the delineation on those charts, which 
 would spare to both parties the unnecessary expense of new 
 commissioners and a new survey. In this case, the only com- 
 mission required would be to run the line on the boundary of 
 Maine. 
 
 The stipulations for the greater facility of the navigation of 
 the River St. Lawrence, and of two passages between the Up- 
 per Lakes, appear evidenth^ desirable for general accommoda- 
 tion ; and I can not refuse the reciprocal claim made by you to 
 render common the passage from Lake Erie into the Detroit 
 River. This must be done by declaring the several passages 
 in those parts free to both parties. 
 
 I should remark, also, that the free use o( the navigation of 
 the Long Sault passage on the St. Lawrence must be extended 
 to below Barnhart's Island, for the purpose of clearing those 
 rapids. 
 
DIPLOMATIC A\D OFFICIAL PAPERS. 63 
 
 I beg leave to repeat to you, sir, the assurances of my most 
 distinguished consideration. Asuburton. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Lord Ashhurton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washi.ngtok, August 9, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — It appears desirable that some explanation between us 
 should be recorded by correspondence respecting the fifth ar- 
 ticle of the treaty signed by us this day for the settlement of 
 boundaries between Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 By that article of the treaty it is stipulated that certain pay- 
 ments shall be made by the government of the United Sates to 
 the states of Maine and Massachusetts. It has, of course, been 
 understood that my negotiations have been with the govern- 
 ment of the United States, and the introduction of terms of 
 agreement between the general government and the states 
 would have been irregular and inadmissible, if it had not been 
 deemed expedient to bring the whole of these transactions 
 within the purview of the treaty. There may not be wanting 
 analogous cases to justify this proceeding; but it seems proper 
 that I should have confirmed by you that my government in- 
 curs no responsibility for these engagements, of the precise 
 nature and object of which I am uninformed, nor have I con- 
 sidered it necessary to make inquiry concerning them. 
 
 I beg, sir, to renew to you the assurances of my high con- 
 sideration. ASHBURTON. 
 
 Hon. Damel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. TVebster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, August 9, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your note of the 9th of August with respect to the object and 
 intention of the fifth article of the treaty. What you say in re- 
 gard to that subject is quite correct. It purports to contain no 
 stipulation on the part of Great Britain, nor is any responsibili- 
 ty supposed to be incurred by it on the part of your government. 
 
 I renew, my lord, the assurances of my distinguished con- 
 sideration. Damel Webster. 
 
 Lord Ashbcrton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 14, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The territory within the lines mentioned by you con- 
 tains eight hundred and ninety-three square miles, equal Xojive 
 hundred and seventy-one thousand jive hundred and twenty acres. 
 It is a long and narrow tract upon the mountains or highlands, 
 
64 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the distance from Lake Pohenagamook to the Metjarmette Port- 
 age being one hundred and ten miles. The territory is barren, 
 and without timber of value, and I should estimate that nine- 
 teen parts out of twenty are unfit for cultivation. Along eighty 
 miles of this territory the highlands throw up into irregular em- 
 inences of different heights, and, though observing a general 
 northeast and southwest direction, are not brought well into 
 line. Some of the elevations are over three thousand feet 
 above the sea. 
 
 The formation is primitive silicious rock, with slate resting 
 upon it, around the basis. Between the eminences are morass- 
 es and swamps, throughout which beds of moss of luxuriant 
 growth rest on and cover the rocks and earth beneath. The 
 growth is such as is usual in mountain regions on this Conti- 
 nent in high latitudes. On some of the ridges and eminences 
 birch and maple are found ; on others, spruce and fir ; and in 
 the swamps, spruce intermixed with cedar; but the wood every 
 where is insignificant, and of stinted growth. It will readily 
 be seen, therefore, that for cultivation, or as capable of furnish- 
 ing the means of human subsistence, the lands are of no value. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 A. Talcott, Commissioner. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 The New Hampshire Delegation in Congress to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 15, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The undersigned, composing the delegation of the State 
 of New Hampshire in both Houses of Congress, have received 
 a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislature of New Hamp- 
 shire in respect to a portion of the territory of the state which 
 is claimed by Great Britain. 
 
 The resolution is as follows: 
 
 " State of New Hampshire : In the year of our Lord one thousand eight hund- 
 red and forty-two. 
 
 *' Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives in Gen- 
 eral Court convened, That his excellency the governor request 
 our senators and representatives in Congress to take such meas- 
 ures as may be necessary, during the pending negotiations at 
 Washington, relative to the northern and northeastern boundary 
 of the United States, to best sustain the rights of this state to the 
 territory over which we have always heretofore claimed and 
 exercised jurisdiction ; and that such papers, documents, and 
 information be transmitted to them by his excellency as may 
 aid in carrying into effect the object of this resolution." 
 
 The undersigned beg leave to represent that the right of the 
 state to the territory in controversy is, as they believe, incon- 
 trovertible ; and, before any arrangement shall be made which 
 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 65 
 
 looks to any relinquishment of that right in any degree, it is 
 
 their wish, on behalf of the state, to present such documents 
 
 and facts as tend to show the impropriety of such a course. 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 Levi Woodbury, } c ^ 
 T wr c >Senators. 
 
 Leonard Wilcox, ) 
 
 Chas. G. Atherton,^ 
 
 rr o ' I Members of the House 
 
 Iristram ohaw, ^ 
 
 Ira a. Eastman, 
 John R. Reding, 
 
 To the President of the United Staces. 
 
 of Representatives. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the New Hampshire Delegation in Congress. 
 
 Department of State, Washing-con, July 18, 1842. 
 
 Gentlemen, — The President of the United States has trans- 
 mitted to this department a letter dated the 15th instant, from 
 the delegation of the state of New Hampshire in both Houses 
 of Congress, communicating a copy of a resolution passed by 
 the Legislature of that state respecting a portion of her terri- 
 tory which is claimed by Great Britain, and intimating that, 
 pending the present negotiations at Washington relative to 
 the northern and northeastern boundary of the United States, 
 and before any arrangement shall be made for a relinquishment 
 of the right of the state co the territory referred to, it is the wish 
 of the delegation to present such documents and facts as tend 
 to show the impropriety of such a course. 
 
 The Secretary of State would be very happy to receive from 
 the delegation of New Hampshire a statement of what they con- 
 sider the extent of territory to which the resolution of the State 
 Legislature is supposed to refer ; and also any such documents 
 or proofs of any such facts as they may think it important to 
 lay before the government of the United States. 
 I have the honor, &c., 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 The New Hampshire Delegation in Congress. 
 The New Hampshire Delegation in Congress to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 19, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned have received a letter from the Secretary 
 of State, dated the 18th instant, in reply to a communication 
 dated the 15th instant, which the undersigned had the honor to 
 address to the President of the United States, communicating a 
 resolution passed by the Legislature of the State of New Hamp- 
 shire respecting a portion of the territory of that state claimed 
 by Great Britain. 
 
 The Secretary of State having expressed a desire to receive 
 
 E 
 
GQ DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS, 
 
 from the delegation of the State of New Hampshire "a state- 
 ment of what they consider the extent of territory to which the 
 resolution of the State Legislature is supposed to refer, and also 
 any such documents or proofs of any such facts as they may 
 think it important to lay before the government of the United 
 States," the undersigned beg leave to refer to the following 
 documents and papers, among others, as furnishing a full state- 
 ment of the claims and rights of the State of New Hampshire 
 to the territory in dispute, and as also defining its boundaries. 
 
 1. The argument of the Hon. William C. Bradley, furnished 
 the commissioners under the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent. 
 
 2. The statement of the Hon. Albert Gallatin, prepared for 
 the King of the Netherlands. 
 
 3. An historical sketch of the northern boundary of New 
 Hampshire, published in the 2d volume of the Collections of 
 the Historical Society of New Hampshire, page 267. 
 
 4. A report of commissioners of the State of New Hamp- 
 shire, dated November 23, 1836, which is to be found accom- 
 panying the report of the Committee on Foreign Affiiirs of the 
 House of Representatives, 25th Congress, 3d session, report 
 No. 176 — No. 6 of the accompanying documents. 
 
 The undersigned are expecting to receive further documents 
 upon the subject from his Excellency the Governor of New 
 Hampshire, which, when received, they will transmit to the 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 We have the honor to be your obedient servants, 
 
 Levi Woodbury, ) Senators of New Hamp- 
 L. Wilcox, ) shire. 
 
 Ira a. Eastman,"^ 
 
 Edmund Burke, \Representatioes of the State 
 John R. Reding, [ of New Hampshire. 
 Tristram Shaw, J 
 Hon. Daniel Webster. 
 
 p.S. — We transmit herewith the report of commissioners 
 above alluded to, and also the second volume of Historical 
 Collections. You will oblige us by returning the latter when 
 you may have no further use for it. 
 
 The other documents are on file in the State Department. 
 
 Mr. Stuart to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 7, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — In answer to the inquiries which you were pleased to 
 make of me yesterday, I would remark, that Sugar Island, sit- 
 uate in the River Ste. Marie, a short distance below Fort Bra- 
 dy, is, as to soil, very excellent, and it abounds in the finest 
 (sugar) maple-trees to be found any where ; the inhabitants of 
 our side of the Sault Ste. Marie derive a handsome revenue 
 
DIPI-OMATJC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 67 
 
 from the sugar and sirup which they annually make on this isl- 
 and. It would be a great disappointment to the people of that 
 region to lose it ; besides, is the faith of the nation not pledged 
 for its preservation by the treaty held with the Chippewas in 
 1826, which pi'ovided for half-breed reservations on this island? 
 It is, in my opinion, of very great importance that the right of 
 passage be secured for American vessels between the Island of 
 Bois Blanc, in the River Detroit (opposite Fort Maiden), and 
 the British shore ; the channel is only 200 to 300 yards wide, 
 and is entirely commanded both by the island and Fort Mai- 
 den. At present there is no other passage for our larger class 
 of vessels, steam-boats, &c. ; and it will require much time and 
 expense to render the old passage south of Grose Isle availa- 
 ble. In short, the right of using the British Channel is, in my 
 opinion, absolutely necessary. 
 
 I am respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Robert Stuart. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Delafield to Mr. Fraser. 
 
 New York, Jtily 20, 1842. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I have looked over the letter of Mr. F. Webster 
 to you, as you desired, and perceive that it is some "particular 
 topographical information," more especially, that the secretary 
 desires concerning the country between Lake Superior and the 
 Lake of the Woods. That district was thoroughly explored 
 by Messrs. Ferguson and Whistler, the surveyors of our party, 
 and by myself, as the United States agent. 
 
 We all proceeded inland, by the Grand Portage route, to the 
 Lake of the Woods. I had previously obtained much informa- 
 tion to prove that there was a more northern route by a well- 
 known Long Lake, and the only lake known by that name, some 
 distance north of the Grand Portage route ; and as it became 
 my duty to claim that as the true route (having discovered, 
 too, that the British commissioners intended to claim by the 
 Fond du Lac route), I returned by that northern route to Lake 
 Superior, accompanied by Mr. Whistler; we, consequently, saw 
 more of the country than any others of the party. 
 
 As you are aware, my claim to the northern route was sus- 
 tained by the American commissioners, and became a subject 
 of final disagreement. 
 
 The only other difierence was in relation to the claim I made 
 to St. George's Island, in the River St. Mary, which was also 
 sanctioned by General Porter, the American commissioner, and 
 is a good claim, I think, by all the evidence in the case. 
 
 As to the topographical information, some can be had by ref- 
 erence to the maps and discussions which were deposited by 
 
68 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 me in the State Department, July 24, 1824. Beside the jour- 
 nal of the commissioners, I also deposited the journal of the 
 agent, more in detail, containing all the claims and discussions, 
 &c., at length. 
 
 The face of the country is mountainous, rocky, and barren 
 for nearly the whole distance in question. Throughout my 
 journeys, I may say, I saw but little except rock and water. 
 My route was necessarily confined to the water-courses ; but, 
 whenever I ascended a height, it was the same dreary prospect 
 in all directions, every valley between such heights being a lit- 
 tle lake or the discharge of a water-course. 
 
 As an agricultural district it has no value or interest, even 
 prospectively, in my opinion. If the climate were suitable, 
 which it is not, I can only say that I never saw, in my explora- 
 tions there, tillable land enough to sustain any permanent pop- 
 ulation sufficiently numerous to justify other settlements than 
 those of the fur traders, and, I might add, fishermen. The fur 
 traders there occupied nearly all those places ; and the opinion 
 now expressed is the only one I ever heard entertained by those 
 most experienced in these northwestern regions. 
 
 There is, nevertheless, much interest felt by the fur traders 
 on this subject of boundary. To them it is of much import- 
 ance, as they conceive ; and it is, in fact, of national import- 
 ance. Had the British commissioner consented to proceed by 
 the Pigeon River, which is the Long Lake of Mitchell's Map, 
 it is probable there would have been an agreement. There 
 w^ere several reasons for his pertinacity, and for this disagree- 
 ment, which belong, however, to the private history of the 
 commission, and can be stated when required. The Pigeon 
 River is a continuous water-course. The St. George's Island, 
 in the St. Mary's River, is a valuable island, and worth as much, 
 perhaps, as most of the country between the Pigeon River and 
 Dog River route, claimed for the United States, in an agri- 
 cultural sense. 
 
 Mr, Ferguson is, I believe, in the neighborhood of Wilming- 
 ton, Delaware. He can give the desired topographical inform- 
 ation. I have a complete and daily journal, descriptive of the 
 country passed over, but have no time to refer to it this even- 
 ing. It would confirm my general remarks, however. 
 
 I am now on the eve of departure with my family for Suf- 
 folk county. Long Island. Be pleased to say to Mr. Webster, 
 that any and all the information or assistance I can give is at 
 his command, but that, if possible, I hope it may be by corre- 
 spondence rather than a personal visit, as my engagements 
 here just now are such as to make a jaunt to Washington rath- 
 er inconvenient. Should topographical information only be 
 desired, and the present is not satisfactory, I would refer the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 69 
 
 secretary to Mr. Ferguson, and would myself refer to my jour- 
 nal. I shall be absent from the city until the 4th of August. 
 Until, say August 1st, my address will be at "Quoque, Suffolk 
 county, Long Island." You are quite at liberty to show these 
 hasty remarks to Mr. Webster ; in short, it is better to do so 
 than to repeat them, and I would prefer it. 
 
 Yours truly, Jos. Delafield. 
 
 Major D. Frazer. 
 
 Mr. Wehster to Mr. Ferguson. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, July 25, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Having been astronomer and surveyor to the commis- 
 sioners under the seventh article of the Treaty of Ghent, and 
 having, as I understand, explored the country personally and 
 thoroughly from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, I 
 will be obliged to you to give me information in respect to two 
 or three subjects of inquiry. 
 
 In the first place, be kind enough to describe the Pigeon 
 River, its estuary or bay at its mouth, its size, and the nature 
 of its channel and current in the last five or ten miles of its 
 course. Be pleased to say whether the estuary of this river, 
 and its position and bearing in I'elation to Isle Royal, may 
 naturally lead to the conclusion that it is the Long Lake spoken 
 of in the treaty of 1783. 
 
 What is the general nature of the country between the 
 mouth of Pigeon River and the Rainy Lake ? Of what forma- 
 tion is it, and how is its surface 1 and will any considerable 
 portion of its area be fit for cultivation ? Are its waters active 
 and running streams, as in other parts of the United States, or 
 are they dead lakes, swamps, and morasses ? If the latter be 
 their general character, at what point, as you proceed west- 
 ward, do the waters receive a more decided character as run- 
 ning streams ? 
 
 There are said to be two lines of communication, each partly 
 by water and partly by portages, from the neighborhood of 
 Pigeon River to the Rainy Lake ; one by the way of Fowl 
 Lakes, the Saganaga Lake, and the Cypress Lake ; the other 
 by way of Arrow River and Lake, then by way of Saganaga 
 Lake and through the River Maligne, meeting the other route 
 at Lake la Croix, and through the River Namekan to the Rainy 
 Lake. Do you know any reason for attaching great preference 
 to either of these two lines ? Or do you consider it of no im- 
 portance, in any point of view, which may be agreed to ? 
 Please be full and particular on these several points. 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 James Ferguson, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. 
 

 70 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Mr. Ferguson to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 25, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 note of to-day, desh'ing to be informed of the character of the 
 region northwestward of Lake Superior, which comprehends 
 the several practiced and customary routes between that lake 
 and the Lake of the Woods. 
 
 In reply, I submit the following statement, which will give, 
 as far as I am able, the desired information. 
 
 At the mouth of the Pigeon River there is probably about 
 three hundred yards in length of alluvial formation ; but the 
 river above that, as far as to near Fort Charlotte, runs between 
 steep, cut rocks of basaltic or primitive formation, and is a suc- 
 cession of falls and rapids for nearly its whole length; the last 
 cataract, which is within about a mile of its mouth, being al- 
 most one hundred feet in height. You will, perhaps, understand 
 the formation of the country better when I mention that nearly 
 the whole of the northern shore of Lake Superior consists of 
 these sheer rocky escarpments, from six hundred to nine hund- 
 red feet high, and that the sources of most of the rivers which 
 have cut their channels into the lake lie within thirty or forty 
 miles of its verge. 
 
 There is really not much difference in elevation between 
 South Fowl Lake and the lakes of the height of land. The 
 character I have given of Pigeon River will serve also for the 
 Arrow River, excepting that the latter has a reach of about two 
 miles of still water. 
 
 I have no doubt that the bay of the Pigeon River is the 
 Long Lake of the treaty of 1783. It is designated by the name 
 on Mitchell's Map, which at that time was the only map ex- 
 isting of these regions, and was proven, by the evidence of Mr. 
 John Adams and Mr. John Jay, to have been the only geo- 
 graphical description before the negotiators of the first treaty. 
 Though evidently defective and erroneous, it is but fair to take 
 it as an evidence of the intention. In addition to this evidence 
 of the construction of the treaty of 1783, at the time it was 
 concluded, we have this fact further : that, immediately after 
 the peace, the traders of the Northwest Fur Company destroyed 
 their forts and warehouses at the Grand Portage, and removed 
 themselves to Fort William, ten leagues on the other side of 
 the Pigeon River ; a course which could only have been adopt- 
 ed for the reason that they supposed their previous location 
 would now be on foreign territory. In addition, I have never 
 heard this construction of the treaty of 1783 questioned by any 
 of the partners of the British Fur Company whom I have met 
 in that quarter. 
 
 To your query as to the character of the country between 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 71 
 
 the mouth of the Pigeon River and the Rainy Lake, it is more 
 difficult to give a distinct answer than to any of the others. 
 The rivers here are all rapid ; those running toward Lake 
 Superior are of small size. The Pigeon River and Arrow 
 River vary in width from sixty to two hundred feet, and, as I 
 have said previously, are almost a continued rapid. 
 
 But the rivers running northward : the outlet of Lake Saisa- 
 ginegau, the River Maligne, the River Namecan, and the Rainy 
 River are all bold and strong rivers, and of much greater 
 width and volume, carrying with them, through gentler slopes, 
 the drainage of a more extended surface. On the plateau 
 which makes the height of land, and which I would define as 
 lying between the Fowl Lake and Lake Namecan, lie a group 
 of lakes connecting nearly with each other, having their sorties 
 sometimes toward the Arrow and Pigeon Rivers, sometimes 
 toward the St. Louis, sometimes toward the Kamanistiquia and 
 the country of the Nipigon, and sometimes toward Hudson's 
 Bay. In examining, therefore, the geography of this country, 
 it is necessary to remember that the rivers and lakes indicated 
 on the maps are only those at present explored, and that there 
 exist other routes and other connections known only to the 
 natives, and which the impracticable nature of the country has 
 hitherto prevented from coming to the knowledge of the fur 
 traders, who are doubtless the persons most interested in the 
 capabilities of the country. 
 
 As an agricultural district, this region will always be value- 
 less. The pine timber is of high growth, equal for spars, per- 
 haps, to the Norway pine, and may in time find a market ; 
 but there are no alluvions, no arable lands, and the whole 
 country may be described as one waste of rock and water. 
 
 From the outlet of the Rainy Lake the country changes its 
 appearance ; the valleys of the rivers are wider, the timber of 
 more varied and luxuriant growth, and the country capable of 
 cultivation. 
 
 You have desired me, also, to express an opinion as to any 
 preference which I may know to exist between the several 
 lines claimed as boundaries through this country between the 
 United States and Great Britain. 
 
 Considering that Great Britain abandons her claim by the 
 Fond du Lac and the St. Louis River, cedes also Sugar Island, 
 otherwise called St. George's Island, in the Ste. Marie River, 
 and agrees, generally, to a boundary following the old com- 
 mercial route, commencing at the Pigeon River, I do not think 
 that any reasonable ground exists to a final determination of 
 this part of the boundary. I have the honor to be, very re- 
 spectfully, your obedient servant, J. Ferguson. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States. 
 
72 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, Juhj2^), 1842. 
 
 SiR^ — The extent of boundary line separating the United 
 States and territory belonging thereto from the British posses- 
 sions, and lying between the monument of the vSt. Croix and 
 the Stony Mountains, is estimated as follows for each adjacent 
 stale : 
 
 Maine (line as awarded by the King of Holland) 460 miles. 
 New Hampshire - - - - - 40 " 
 
 Vermont 90 " 
 
 New York 420 « 
 
 Pennsylvania - . - - 30 " 
 
 Ohio - - - . - - 200 " 
 
 Michigan - - - - 740 " 
 
 Territory west of Lake Superior - - 1150 " 
 
 Total length of boundary line - 3130 " 
 
 Respectfully submitted by your obedient servant, 
 
 A. Talcott. . 
 Hon. Secretary of State. 
 
 SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Captains Bell and Paine. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, April 30, 1843. 
 
 Gentlemen, — Your experience in the service on the coast 
 of Africa has probably enabled you to give information to the 
 government on some points connected with the slave trade on 
 that coast, in respect to which it is desirable that the most ac- 
 curate knowledge attainable should be possessed. These par- 
 ticulars are, 
 
 1. The extent of the western coast of Africa along which 
 the slave trade is supposed to be carried on, with the rivers, 
 creeks, inlets, bays, harbors, or parts of the coast to which it is 
 understood slave ships most frequently resort. 
 
 2. The space or belt along the shore within which cruisers 
 may be usefully employed for the purpose of detecting vessels 
 engaged in the traffic. 
 
 3. The general course of proceeding of a slave ship after 
 leaving Brazil or the West Indies on a voyage to the coast of 
 Africa for slaves, including her manner of approach to the 
 shore, her previous bargain or arrangement for the purchase 
 of slaves, the time of her usual stay on or near the coast, and 
 the means by which she has communication with persons on 
 land. 
 
 4. The nature of the stations, or barracoons, in which slaves 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 73 
 
 are collected on shore to be sold to the traders, whether usually 
 in rivers, creeks, or inlets, or on or near the open shore. 
 
 5. The usual articles of equipment and preparation, and the 
 manner of fitting up, by which a vessel is known to be a slaver, 
 though not caught with slaves on board. 
 
 6. The utility of employing vessels of different nations to 
 cruise together, so that one or the other might have a right to 
 visit and search every vessel which might be met with under 
 suspicious circumstances, either as belonging to the country 
 of the vessel visiting and searching, or to some other country 
 which has, by treaty, conceded such right of visitation and 
 search. 
 
 7. To what places slaves from slave ships could be most con- 
 veniently taken. 
 
 8. Finally, what number of vessels, and of what size and de- 
 scription, it would be necessary to employ on the western coast 
 of Africa, in order to put an entire end to the traffic in slaves, 
 and for what number of years it would probably be necessary 
 to maintain such force to accomplish that purpose ? 
 
 You will please to add such observations as the state of your 
 knowledge may allow relative to the slave trade on the eastern 
 coast of Africa. 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c., 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Captains Bell and Paine, United States Navy. 
 
 Mr. Paine to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, May 2, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The agreement between Commander William Tucker, 
 of the British navy, and myself is so connected with numerous 
 instructions respecting proceedings on the coast of Africa, that 
 I should furnish a copy of all if the object were to justify my- 
 self; but as the wish of the State Department seems to be to 
 ascertain the nature of the agreement itself, and the action of 
 myself thereon ; and as I wish to forward this view promptly, 
 I shall restrict myself to these points, commencing with the 
 agreement, of which the following is a copy : 
 
 " Commander William Tucker, of her Britannic majesty's 
 sloop Wolverine, and senior officer on the west coast of Africa, 
 and Lieutenant John S. Paine, commanding the United States 
 schooner Grampus, in order to carry into execution, as far as 
 possible, the orders and views of their respective governments 
 respecting the suppression of the slave trade, hereby request 
 each other, and agree to detain all vessels under American 
 colors found to be fully equipped for and engaged in the slave 
 trade ; that, if proved to be American property, they shall be 
 handed over to the United States schooner Grampus, or any 
 
74 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Other American cruiser; and that, if proved to be Spanish, 
 Portuguese, Brazilian, or Enghsh property, to any of her Britan- 
 nic majesty's cruisers employed on the west coast of Africa for 
 the suppression of the slave trade, so far as their respective 
 laws and treaties will permit. 
 
 "Signed and exchanged at Sierra Leone, this 11th day of 
 March, 1840. 
 
 "John S. Paine, 
 " Commanding the U. S. Schooner Grampus. 
 "William Tucker, 
 " Commanding H. B. M. Sloop Wolverine, and Senior 
 
 Officer of West Coast of Africa.'' 
 
 The objects of this agreement were, mainly, 
 
 1st. To meet the very common case with slavers, that of 
 having on board two sets of papers. 
 
 2d, To let it be known that there subsisted between the 
 British and American force a good understanding, and a dis- 
 position to co-operate for the purpose indicated, as far as pos- 
 sible, without violating existing treaties. 
 
 A copy was forwarded by me to the Navy Department, to 
 which I received the following reply : 
 
 "Navy Department, Jmie 4, 1840. 
 
 " Sir, — Your letter of the 23d of March last, with its inclos- 
 ures, has been received. 
 
 "The instructions given you for your government when you 
 left the United States, while they indicated a friendly co-opera- 
 tion with the commanders of the British cruisers in the sup- 
 pression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, as likely to 
 aid in detecting the frauds resorted to by those engaged in it 
 for the purpose of avoiding discovery and escaping punish- 
 ment, were not intended to authorize any such arrangement as 
 that which, it appears, you have made with the commander of 
 her Britannic majesty's sloop Wolverine, and by which you 
 delegated to that officer the right to seize vessels under Ameri- 
 can colors, and, under certain circumstances, to detain them, 
 with the view of turning them over to the Grampus, or other 
 United States cruiser. 
 
 " Such a delegation of power is not only unauthorized by 
 your instructions, but contrary to the established and well- 
 known principles and policy of your government, and is, there- 
 fore, not sanctioned by the department. 
 
 "You will make known the views of the department on this 
 subject to the commander of the Wolverine, and inform him 
 that the arrangement made with him, having been disapproved 
 of by your government, can not, on your part, be complied 
 with. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 75 
 
 " The great object of the co-operation being to obviate the 
 difficulties of capture, growing out of the practice adopted by 
 slavers of assuming Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Brazilian 
 colors when overhauled by an American, or American colors 
 when overhauled by a British cruiser ; for this purpose, you 
 are authorized to cruise in company and in co-operation with 
 any British vessel of war employed on the slave coast in the 
 pursuit of objects similar to your own. 
 
 " I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 " J. K. Paulding. 
 
 " Lieutenant John S. Paine, commanding U. 8. Schooner ? 
 Grampiis, Sierra Leone, Coast of Africa." 5 
 
 In compliance with this, I addressed Capt. Tucker as follows : 
 
 " U. S. Schooner Grampus, Aprils!, 1841. 
 
 " Sir, — I am directed to make known to you the views of 
 my government respecting the agreement signed and ex- 
 changed with you on the 1 1th of JMarch, 1840, at Sierra Leone. 
 
 " The Secretary of the Navy says : ' Inform him that the ar- 
 rangement made with him, having been disapproved by your 
 government, can not, on your part, be complied with. The 
 great object of the co-operation being to obviate the difficulties 
 of capture, growing out of the practice adopted by slavers of 
 assuming- Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Brazilian colors 
 when overhauled by an American, or American colors when 
 overhauled by a British cruiser ; for this purpose, you are au- 
 thorized to cruise in company and in co-operation with any 
 British vessel of war employed on the slave coast m pursuit of 
 objects similar to your own.' 
 
 " From the above extract you will perceive that the Secre- 
 tary of the Navy at Washington is careful to avoid giving 
 countenance to the practice of detaining American vessels, even 
 though they be slavers, unless by American vessels of war. 
 
 " The best, if not the only, means of co-operation left, would 
 seem to be, exchanging information, or cruising in company. 
 
 "If any thing can be effected by this vessel within such limits 
 while on the coast, it will be gratifying to me to aid you, or any 
 of her majesty's officers, in forwarding so desirable an object. 
 
 " I am, with very high respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
 " John S. Paine, Lieutenant commanding. 
 
 "Captain William Tucker, commanding H. B. M. Sloop Wolverine, and f 
 Senior Officer of H. B- M. Naval Forces on the Coast of Africa." 5 
 
 Hoping to meet Captain Tucker, I did not dispatch the let- 
 ter ; but, finally, finding that his successor had arrived, I ad- 
 dressed to him the following : 
 
 [extract.] 
 
 " U. S. Schooner Grampus, Sierra Leone, June 17, 1841. 
 
 " While cruising here last year, I had made an arrangement 
 
76 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 with Commander William Tucker of a similar character to that 
 recommended ; which, however, was not approved by the Sec- 
 retary of the Navy ; and, as I have not fallen in with Captain 
 Tucker since the receipt of a communication from Washington 
 on the subject, I have deemed it proper to inclose to you a let- 
 ter to Captain Tucker, with a copy of the agreement referred 
 to therein. 
 
 " In conclusion, I tender to you my sincere wishes for your 
 success in the prosecution of duties so interesting to the cause 
 of humanity. 
 
 " I am, with the highest respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
 " John S. Paine, Lieutenant commanding. 
 
 " Captain , commanding H. B- M. Ship Ids, and } 
 
 Setiior Officer on the Western Coast of Africa." ) 
 
 Any expression of my opinion of Mr. Paulding's letter to me 
 would have been improper, and would still be indecorous. I 
 shall be grateful to be informed if you think any explanation 
 or defense necessary. I have never believed so. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, sir, your 
 obedient servant, John S. Paine, 
 
 Commander United States Navy. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Commanders Bell and Paine to the Secretary of State. 
 
 Washington City, May 10, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — In accordance with the wishes expressed in your com- 
 munication of the 30th ultimo, we have the honor to submit the 
 following statement : 
 
 In reply to the first particular, viz., "The extent of the west- 
 ern coast of Africa, along which the slave trade is supposed 
 to be carried on, with the rivers, creeks, inlets, bays, harbors, 
 or ports of the coast to which it is understood slave ships most 
 frequently resort." 
 
 The slave trade from Western Africa to America is carried 
 on wholly between Senegal, latitude 16 deg. north, longitude 
 16'^ deg. west, and Cape Frio, in latitude 18 deg. south, longi- 
 tude 12 deg. east, a space (following the windings of the coast 
 at the distance of three or four miles) of more than 3600 miles. 
 There are scattered along the coast five English, four French, 
 five American, six Portuguese, six or eight Dutch, and four or 
 five Danish settlements, besides many which have been aban- 
 doned by their respective governments. 
 
 These settlements are generally isolated ; many of them 
 only a fortress without any town, while a few are a cluster of 
 villages and farms. 
 
 The British, French, and particularly the American settle- 
 ments, exercise an important influence in suppressing the slave 
 trade. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 77 
 
 The influence of the Danes and Dutch is not material. 
 
 The Portuguese influence is supposed to favor the continu- 
 ance of the trade, except the counter influence of the British, 
 through treaty stipulations. 
 
 North of the Portuguese cluster of settlements, of which 
 Bissao is the capital, and south of Benguela (also Portuguese), 
 there is believed to be no probability of a revival of the slave 
 trade to any extent. 
 
 This leaves about 3000 miles of coast, to which the trade 
 (principally with Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil) is limited. 
 
 There are hundreds of trading places on the coast calling 
 themselves " factories," and each claiming the protection of 
 some civilized power. Some of these were the sites of aban- 
 doned colonies ; others have been established by trading com- 
 panies or individuals. 
 
 The actual jurisdiction of a tribe on the coast seldom ex- 
 ceeds ten miles, though these small tribes are sometimes more 
 or less perfectly associated for a greater distance. 
 
 Of these factories and tribes a few have never been directly 
 engaged in the slave trade, and are opposed to it, but the great 
 preponderance is of the slave-trading interest. 
 
 To enumerate the rivers and inlets of this coast would not 
 convey a just idea of the slave country or practices, as the em- 
 barkation often takes place from the beach where there is no 
 inlet ; but we will state a few of the most noted. 
 
 Commencing at Cape Roxo, in latitude 12 deg. 30 min. north, 
 and running down the coast as far as the River Mellacoree, in 
 latitude 9 deg. north, the slave trade is more or less carried on, 
 but (in consequence of the vigilance of cruisers) not to the 
 same extent that it was a few years ago. 
 
 Another portion of the coast, from the limits of the Sierra 
 Leone colony to Cape Mount (a space including the mouths of 
 six or more rivers), the slave trade is extensively prosecuted. 
 Here commences the jurisdiction of the American Colonization 
 Society, which extends to Grand Bassa. There are several 
 slave stations between Grand Bassa and Cape Palmas. Thence 
 eastwardly to Cape Coast Castle, situated near the meridian 
 of Greenwich, we believe there are no slave stations; but east- 
 ward of this, and in the bights of Benin and Biafra, along the 
 whole coast (which includes the mouths of the great rivers 
 Benin, Formosa, Nun, Old and New Calabar, Bonny, Cameron's, 
 Gaboon, and Congo), with few exceptions, down to Benguela, 
 in latitude 13 deg. south, the slave trade is carried on to a very 
 great extent. 
 
 "2d. The space or belt along the shore, within which cruisers 
 may be usefully employed for the purpose of detecting vessels 
 engaged in the traflic." 
 
78 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Men-of-war should always cruise as near the shore as the 
 safety of the vessel will admit, in order to take advantage of 
 the land and sea breezes. Twenty or thirty miles from the 
 coast there are continual calms, where vessels are subject to 
 vexatious delays ; besides which, ships engaged in the slave 
 trade keep close in with the land, in order to reach their places 
 of destination. 
 
 " 3d. The general course of proceeding of a slave ship, after 
 leaving Brazil or the West Indies, on a voyage to the coast of 
 Africa for slaves, including her manner of approach to the 
 shore, her previous bargain or arrangement for the purchase 
 of slaves, the time of her usual stay on or near the coast, and 
 the means by which she has communication with persons on 
 land." 
 
 Vessels bound from the coast of Brazil or the West Indies to 
 the coast of Africa are obliged, in consequence of the trade 
 winds, to run north as far as the latitude of thirty or thirty-five, 
 to get into the variable winds ; thence to the eastward, until 
 they reach the longitude of Cape Verd Islands ; then steer to 
 the southward to their port of destination; and, if bound as far 
 to the eastward as the Gulf of Guinea, usually make the land 
 near Cape Mount or Cape Palmas. Vessels from Brazil bound 
 to the southern part of the coast of Africa run south as far as 
 the latitude of 35 deg. south, and make up their easting in the 
 southern variables. 
 
 Slave vessels are generally owned or chartered by those 
 persons who have an interest in the slave establishments on the 
 coast of Africa, where the slaves are collected and confined in 
 barracoons, or slave prisons, ready for transhipment the mo- 
 ment the vessel arrives. They are, therefore, detained but a 
 short time after arriving at their place of destination. In- 
 stances have come to our notice of vessels arriving at the slave 
 station in the evening, landing their cargo, taking on board all 
 their slaves, and sailing with the land breeze on the following 
 morning. 
 
 It is not unusual, however, for vessels unconnected with any 
 particular slave establishment to make their purchases after 
 arrival. If any delay is likely to occur, an agent is landed, and 
 the vessel stands to sea, and remains absent for as long a time 
 as may be thought necessary to complete their arrangements. 
 
 The slavers communicate with the shore either with their 
 own boats, or boats and canoes belonging to the Kroomen in 
 the employment of those on shore. 
 
 "4th. The nature of the stations, or barracoons, in which 
 slaves are collected on shore to be sold to the traders, whether 
 usually on rivers, creeks, or inlets, or on or near the open 
 shore." 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 79 
 
 The slave stations are variously situated ; some near the 
 mouth, others a considerable distance up the river, and many 
 directly on the sea-shore. The barracoons are thatched build- 
 ings, made sufficiently strong to secure the slaves, and enough 
 of them to contain, in some instances, several thousands. The 
 slaves are collected by the negro chiefs in the vicinity, and 
 sold to the persons in charge of the stations, where they are 
 kept confined until an opportunity offers to ship them off. Ma- 
 terials of all kinds necessary to convert a common trader into 
 a slave ship are kept on hand, and the change can be com- 
 pleted in a few hours. A number of Kroomen are employed, 
 and boats and canoes ready for immediate service. 
 
 The slave stations are generally fortified with cannon and 
 muskets, not only to guard against a rising of the slaves, but to 
 protect them from sudden attacks of the natives in the vicinity, 
 and to command their respect. 
 
 "5th. The usual articles of equipment and preparation, and 
 the manner of fitting up, by which a vessel is known to be a 
 slaver, though not caught with slaves on board." 
 
 Vessels engaged in the slave trade are either fitted up with 
 a slave deck, or have the materials on board, prepared, to put 
 one up in a few hours. Their hatches, instead of being close, 
 as is usual in merchantmen, have gratings ; they are supplied 
 with boilers sufficiently large to cook rice or farina for the 
 number of slaves they expect to receive ; an extra number of 
 water casks, many more than are sufficient for a common 
 crew ; also a number of shackles to secure their slaves-. Most 
 of these articles, however, are concealed, and every thing is 
 done to disguise the vessel. 
 
 It is not unusual for them to have several sets of papers ; 
 two or more persons representing themselves as captains or 
 masters of the vessel, and flags of all nations. Every device 
 is resorted to to deceive should they encounter a cruiser. 
 
 Some are armed with only a few muskets ; others have a 
 number of heavy gans, according to the size of the vessel ; 
 and they range from sixty to four hundred tons burden, with 
 crews from ten to upward of one hundred men. 
 
 " 6th. The utility of employing vessels of different nations to 
 cruise together, so that one or the other might have a right to 
 visit and search every vessel which might be met with under 
 suspicious circumstances, either as belonging to the country 
 of the vessel visiting or searching, or to some other country 
 which has, by treaty, conceded such right of visitation and 
 search." 
 
 We are of opinion that a squadron should be kept on the 
 coast of Africa to co-operate with the British, or other nations 
 interested in stopping the slave trade ; and that the most ef- 
 
80 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ficient mode would be for vessels to cruise in couples, one of 
 each nation. 
 
 " 7th. To what places slaves taken from slave ships on the 
 coast could be most conveniently taken." 
 
 If captured under the American flag, send them to Cape 
 Mesurada, Liberia, or, if convenient, to such other of the Ameri- 
 can settlements as the agent of the United States there may- 
 wish. 
 
 " 8th, Finally, what number of vessels, and of what size and 
 description, it would be necessary to employ on the western 
 coast of Africa in order to put an entire end to the traflic in 
 slaves, and for what number of years it would probably be 
 necessary to maintain such force to accomplish that purpose ;" 
 adding " such observations as the state of your knowledge 
 may allow relative to the slave trade on the eastern coast of 
 Africa." 
 
 As our personal knowledge of the coast extends to only that 
 part of it comprised between Cape Verd and Cape Palmas, it 
 is difficult to state the exact force required for this service. 
 J\ot less, however, than the following, we think necessary : 
 
 One first class sloop-of-war. 
 
 One steamer from 200 to 300 tons burden. 
 
 Two (eight or ten gun) brigs or schooners. 
 
 Ten schooners of about 100 tons, each with four guns. 
 
 One store-ship of from 250 to 300 tons. 
 
 All the vessels to have one tenth less than their complements 
 of men ; to be filled up with Kroomen on their arrival on the 
 coast. 
 
 A steamer, to be fitted up, if possible, to burn either wood or 
 coal, as circumstances require, will be essentially necessary. 
 
 That part of the coast of Africa from which slaves are ex- 
 ported is subject to light winds and calms. A steamer pro- 
 pelled at the rate of six miles an hour could easily overtake the 
 fastest sailing vessels, and would be a great auxiliary in ascend- 
 ing rivers and towing boats in order to attack slave stations. 
 Less duty is performed by sailing cruisers on this coast than 
 on any other we are acquainted with, from the reasons just 
 stated ; and the importance of steam-vessels is much increased 
 by this difficulty. 
 
 We can not state confidently how long such force would be 
 necessary, but we are of opinion that in three years the trade 
 would be so far destroyed as to enable the United States to 
 withdraw a greater part, while a small force of observation 
 would be necessary until the natives had become accustomed 
 to other occupations and lost all hope of again engaging in the 
 traffic. 
 
 In connection with this subject we beg leave to remark, that 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 81 
 
 the American fair trader is sometimes obstructed in the most 
 vexatious manner by armed British merchantmen, sustained by- 
 British cruisers. This arises from the practice which exists 
 with the commanders of single cruisers, the agents of trading 
 companies, the masters of merchantmen, and others, making 
 agreements, treaties, or, as the expression there is, " books," se- 
 curing to themselves the exclusive trade with the tribe or dis- 
 trict. A late instance of this unreasonable, and probably un- 
 authorized, spirit of monopoly has come to our notice near Cape 
 Mount, where the native chief was induced to believe that he 
 could not make a treaty with the American colonists, because 
 he had made one with the commander of a British cruiser. 
 
 The same commander, it is asserted, has also threatened the 
 governor of the colony at Monrovia that he will make reprisals 
 on the commerce of the colony for exercising the usual juris- 
 diction at Bassa Cove, only two or three miles from their town 
 of Bassa and Edina. 
 
 Our knowledge of the commanders of British cruisers au- 
 thorizes us to say that their conduct is not usually thus un- 
 friendly; but many instances show the propriety of guarding 
 the interests of the fair dealer, who is generally opposed to the 
 slave trade. 
 
 Respecting these treaties or agreements with the tribes, we 
 think that only the commanders of squadrons or governors of 
 colonies should be permitted to make them ; and with those 
 over whom their governments can not reasonably claim juris- 
 diction, treaties should not be made to the exclusion of other 
 mercantile powers trading on the coast, as has sometimes been 
 done ; and all treaties should contain a prohibition of the slave 
 trade. Commanders of squadrons and governors of colonies 
 should be authorized and directed to seize every opportunity, 
 and make use of all honorable means, of inducing the native 
 tribes, and particularly the Emperor of Ashantee, the empress 
 or potentate at Loango, and other powerful nations, to enter 
 into agreements to put a stop, as far as their influence extends, 
 to the traffic ; to seize and send home for trial all foreigners 
 found on the coast engaged in the slave trade, whether belong- 
 ing to vessels or residing on the coast (for should these per- 
 sons be permitted to remain, even after their slave stations are 
 destroyed, they will erect others at points probably less assail- 
 able), and should be enjoined to extend their protection to fair 
 traders, though not of their own nation. 
 
 Commanders of squadrons and governors should be directed 
 to destroy all slave factories within the reach of the force em- 
 ployed, and to proclaim to the tribes in the vicinity that they 
 must not be renewed, on pain of having their villages also de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 F 
 
82 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 We have little knowledge of the details respecting the slave 
 trade on the eastern coast of Africa. No instance has come to 
 our knowledge of the use of the American flag there. From the 
 best information we can obtain, it seems that a large trade is 
 carried on by Portuguese colonies, the Arab chiefs, and negro 
 tribes. Their greatest markets are the Mohammedan coun- 
 tries, bordering on the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, the Portu- 
 guese East India colonies, Bombay, and perhaps other British 
 possessions in the East Indies ; this part of the trade is probably 
 in the hands of the Arabian vessels. Many are also shipped 
 to Brazil, and some, perhaps, find their way to Cuba and Porto 
 Rico. 
 
 In concluding this subject, we beg leave to remark, that the 
 field of operations to carry on the slave trade is so extensive, 
 the profits so great, and the obstacles in the path so many, so 
 various, so difficult, that every means should be used by civil- 
 ized nations, and particularly by the United States and Great 
 Britain, to effect the object ; and we do not believe that any 
 material good can result without an earnest and cordial co- 
 operation. We have the honor to be, with high respect, your 
 obedient servants, 
 
 Charles H. Bell, J Commanders U. S. Navy., 
 John S. Paine, ) ^ 
 
 Hon. Daniel Websteu, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Lord Ashhurton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, August 9, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — By the 3d article of the convention which I have this 
 day signed with you, there is an agreement for the reciprocal 
 delivery, in certain cases, of criminals fugitive from justice ; 
 but it becomes necessary that I should apprise you that this 
 article can have no legal eflfect within the dominions of Great 
 Britain until confirmed by act of Parliament. It is possible 
 that Parliament may not be in session before the exchange of 
 the ratifications of the convention, but its sanction shall be 
 asked at the earliest possible period, and no doubt can be en- 
 tertained that it will be given. In her majesty's territories in 
 Canada, where cases for acting under this convention are likely 
 to be of more frequent occurrence, the governor general has 
 sufficient power, under the authority of local legislation, and 
 the convention will there be acted upon so soon as its ratifica- 
 tion shall be known ; but it becomes my duty to inform you of 
 the short delay which may possibly intervene in giving full 
 effect to it where the confirmation by Parliament becomes 
 necessary for its execution. I beg, sir, to renew to you the 
 assurance of my high consideration. Ashburton. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &C. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 83 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD ASHBURTON. 
 
 MARITIME RIGHTS. 
 
 CASE OF THE " CREOLE." 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Departmen't of State, Washington, August 1, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — The President has learned with much regret that 
 you are not empowered by your government to enter into a 
 formal stipulation for the better security of vessels of the United 
 States when meeting with disasters in passing between the 
 United States and the Bahama Islands, and driven by such 
 disasters into British ports. This is a subject which is deemed 
 to be of great importance, and which can not, on the present 
 occasion, be overlooked. 
 
 Your lordship is aware that several cases have occurred 
 within the last few years which have caused much complaint. 
 In some of these cases compensation has been made by the 
 English government for the interference of the local authorities 
 with American vessels having slaves on board, by which in- 
 terference these slaves were set free. In other cases, such 
 compensation has been refused. It appears to the President 
 to be for the interest of both countries that the recurrence of 
 similar cases in future should be prevented as far as possible. 
 
 Your lordship has been acquainted with the case of the 
 " Creole," a vessel carried into the port of Nassau last winter 
 by persons who had risen upon the lawful authority of the 
 vessel, and, in the accomplishment of their purpose, had com- 
 mitted murder on a person on board. 
 
 The opinions which that occurrence gave occasion for this 
 government to express, in regard to the rights and duties of 
 friendly and civilized maritime states, placed by Providence 
 near to each other, were well considered, and are entertained 
 with entire confidence. The facts in the particular case of the 
 "Creole" are controverted: positive and officious interference 
 by the colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged 
 on the one side and denied on the other. 
 
 It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of 
 opinion as to the evidence in the case, as it at present exists, 
 because the rights of individuals having rendered necessary 
 a more thorough and a judicial investigation of facts and cir- 
 cumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is un- 
 derstood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, 
 will render me more able than at this moment to present to the 
 British government a full and accurate view of the whole case 
 
84 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERa. 
 
 But it is my purpose and my duty to invite your lordship's 
 attention to the general subject, and your serious consideration 
 of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade 
 of the United States against unlawful annoyance and interrup- 
 tion along this part of their shore. The Bahama Islands ap- 
 proach the coast of Florida within a few leagues, and, with the 
 coast, form a long and narrow channel, filled with innumerable 
 small islands and banks of sand, and the navigation difficult 
 and dangerous, not only on these accounts, but from the vio- 
 lence of the winds and the variable nature of the currents. 
 Accidents are, of course, frequent, and necessity often compels 
 vessels of the United States, in attempting to double Cape 
 Florida, to seek shelter in the ports of these islands. Along 
 this passage the Atlantic states hold intercourse with the states 
 on the Gulf and the Mississippi, and through it the products of 
 the valley of that river (a region of vast extent and boundless 
 fertility) find a main outlet to the sea in their destination to 
 the markets of the world. 
 
 No particular ground of complaint exists as to the treatment 
 which American vessels usually receive in these ports, unless 
 they happen to have slaves on board ; but, in cases of that kind, 
 complaints have been made, as already stated, of officious in- 
 terference of the colonial authorities with the vessel, for the 
 purpose of changing the condition in which these persons are, 
 by the laws of their own country, and of setting them free. 
 
 In the southern states of this Union slavery exists by the laws 
 of the states and under the guarantee of the Constitution of the 
 United States ; and it has existed in them from a period long 
 antecedent to tiie time when they ceased to be British colonies. 
 In this state of things, it will happen that slaves will be often 
 on board coasting vessels, as hands, as servants attending the 
 families of their owners, or for the purpose of being carried 
 from port to port. For the security of the rights of their citi- 
 zens, when vessels having persons of this description on board 
 are driven by stress of weather, or carried by unlawful force, 
 into British ports, the United States propose the introduction 
 of no new principle into the law of nations. They require only 
 a faithful and exact observance of the injunctions of that code, 
 as understood and practiced in modern times. 
 
 Your lordship observes that I have spoken only of American 
 vessels driven into British ports by the disasters of the seas, 
 or carried in by unlawful force. I confine my remarks to 
 these cases, because they are the common cases, and because 
 they are the cases which the law of nations most emphatically 
 exempts from interference. The maritime law is full of in- 
 stances of the application of that great and practical rule, 
 which declares that that which is the clear result of necessity 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 85 
 
 ought to draw after it no penalty and no hazard. If a ship be 
 driven by stress of weather into a prohibited port, or into an 
 open port with prohibited articles on board, in neither case is 
 any forfeiture incurred. And what may be considered a still 
 stronger case, it has been decided by eminent English authority, 
 and that decision has received general approbation, that il a 
 vessel be driven by necessity into a port strictly blockaded, 
 this necessity is good defense, and exempts her from penalty. 
 A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a marine 
 leao-ue from the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the 
 natTon to which she belongs, and subjected exclusively to the 
 iurisdiction of that nation. If, against the will of her master 
 or owner, she be driven or carried nearer to the land, or even 
 into port, those who have, or who ought to have, control over 
 her struo-gling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, 
 and so within the exclusive jurisdiction of her own govern- 
 ment what reason or justice is there in creating a distinction 
 between her rights and immunities in a position thus the result 
 of absolute necessity, and the same rights and immumties before 
 superior power had forced her out of her voluntary course [ 
 
 But my lord, the rule of law, and the comity and practice 
 of nations, go much further than these cases of necessity, and 
 allow even to a merchant vessel, coming into any open port ol 
 another country voluntarily, for the purposes of lawful trade, 
 to brines with her, and keep over her, to a very considerable 
 extent,1he jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own 
 country, excluding to this extent, by consequence, the jurisdic- 
 tion of the local law. A ship, say the publicists, though at 
 anchor in a foreign harbor, preserves its jurisdiction and its 
 laws It is natural to consider the vessels of a. nation as parts 
 of its territory, though at sea, as the state retains its jurisdic- 
 tion over them ; and, according to the commonly received 
 custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in 
 parts ofthe sea subject to a foreign dominion. 
 
 This is the doctrine ofthe law of nations, clearly laid down 
 by writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as 
 it is supposed, with the practice of modern nations. 
 
 If a murder be committed on board ot an American vessel 
 by one of the crew upon another or upon a passenger, or by a 
 passenger on one ofthe crew or another passenger, while such 
 vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdiction of a foreign state 
 or sovereignty, the offense is cognizable and punishable by the 
 proper court of the United States, in the same manner as it 
 such offense had been committed on board the vessel on the 
 hif^h seas. The law of England is supposed to be the same. 
 
 It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel be- 
 longing to it, while lying in the port of another, is not neces- 
 
86 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 savily wholly exclusive. We do not so consider or so assert 
 it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus lying in 
 port, and for all contracts entered into while there, by her 
 master or owners, she and they must, doubtless, be answerable 
 to the laws of the place. Nor, if her master or crew, while 
 on board in such port, break the peace of the community by 
 the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for them. 
 But, nevertheless, the law of nations, as I have stated it, and 
 the statutes of governments founded on that law, as I have re- 
 ferred to them, show that enlightened nations, in modern times, 
 do clearly hold that the jurisdiction and laws of a nation ac- 
 company her ships not only over the high seas, but into ports 
 and harbors, or wheresoever else they may be water-borne, 
 for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, 
 duties, and obligations of those on board thereof, and that, to 
 the extent of the exercise of this jurisdiction, they are consider- 
 ed as parts of the territory of the nation herself. 
 
 If a vessel be driven by weather into the ports of another 
 nation, it would hardly be alleged by any one that, by the 
 mere force of such arrival within the waters of the state, the 
 law of that state would so attach to the vessel as to aflect ex- 
 isting rights of property between persons on board, whether 
 arising from contract or otherwise. The local law would not 
 operate to make the goods of one man to become the goods of 
 another man. Nor ought it to affect their personal obligations, 
 or existing relations between themselves; nor was it ever sup- 
 posed to have such effect, until the delicate and exciting ques- 
 tion which has caused these interferences in the British islands 
 arose. The local law in these cases dissolves no obligations 
 or relations lawfully entered into or lawfully existing accord- 
 ing to the laws of the ship's country. If it did, intercourse of 
 civilized men between nation and nation must cease. Marriages 
 are frequently celebrated in one country in a manner not law- 
 ful or valid in another ; but did any body ever doubt that mar- 
 riages are valid all over the civilized world, if valid in the 
 country in which they took place ? Did any one ever imagine 
 that local law acted upon such marriages to annihilate their 
 obligation, if the party should visit a country in which marriages 
 must be celebrated in another form ? 
 
 It may be said that, in such instances, personal relations are 
 founded in contract, and therefore to be respected ; but that 
 the relation of master and slave is not founded in contract, and 
 therefore is to be respected only by the law of the place which 
 recognizes it. Whoever so reasons encounters the authority 
 of the whole body of public law from Grotius down ; because 
 there are numerous instances in which the law itself presumes 
 or implies contracts ; and prominent among those instances is 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 87 
 
 the very relation which we are now considering, and which re- 
 lation is holden by law to draw after it mutuality of obligation. 
 
 Is not the relation between a father and his minor children 
 acknowledged when they go abroad 1 And on what contract 
 is this founded, but a contract raised by general principles of 
 law, from the relation of the parties ? 
 
 Your lordship will please to bear in mind that the proposi- 
 tion which I am endeavoring to support is, that by the comity 
 of the law of nations, and the practice of modern times, mer- 
 chant vessels entering open ports of other nations, for the pur- 
 pose of trade, are presumed to be allowed to bring with them, 
 and to retain, for their protection and government, the jurisdic- 
 tion and laws of their own country. All this, I repeat, is pre- 
 sumed to be allowed ; because the ports are open, because 
 trade is invited, and because, under these circumstances, such 
 permission or allowance is according to general usage. It is 
 not denied that all this may be refused ; and this suggests a 
 distinction, the disregard of which may, perhaps, account for 
 most of the difficulties arising in cases of this sort ; that is to 
 say, the distinction between what a state may do, if it pleases, 
 and what it is presumed to do, or not to do, in the absence of 
 any positive declaration of its will. A state might declare that 
 all ibreign marriages should be regarded as null and void with- 
 in its territory ; that a foreign father, arriving with an infant 
 son, should no longer have authority or control over him ; that, 
 on the arrival of a foreign vessel in its ports, all shipping arti- 
 cles, and all indentures of apprenticeship between her crew and 
 her owners or masters, should cease to be binding. These, and 
 many other things equally irrational and absurd, a sovereign 
 state has doubtless the power to do ; but they are not to be 
 presumed. It is not to be taken for granted, ab ante, that it is 
 the will of the sovereign state thus to withdraw itself from the 
 circle of civilized nations. It will be time enough to believe 
 this to be its intention when it formally announces that inten- 
 tion by appropriate enactments, edicts, or other declarations. 
 
 In regard to slavery within the British territories, there is a 
 well-known and clear promulgation of the will of the sovereign 
 auihority ; that is to say, there is a well-known rule of her 
 law. As to England herself, that law has long existed ; and 
 recent acts of Parliament establish the same law for the colo- 
 nies. The usual mode of stating the rule of English law is, 
 that no sooner does a slave reach the shore of England than he 
 is free. This is true ; but it means no more than that when a 
 slave comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of England he 
 ceases to be a slave, because the law of England positively 
 and notoriously prohibits and forbids the existence of such a 
 relation between man and man. But it does not mean that 
 
88 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 English authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, 
 may enter where the jurisdiction of another nation is acknowl- 
 edged to exist, and there destroy rights, obligations, and in- 
 terests lawfully existing under the authority of such other na- 
 tion. No such construction, and no such effect, can be right- 
 fully given to the British law. It is true that it is competent 
 to the British Parliament, by express statute provision, to de- 
 clare that no foreign jurisdiction of any kind should exist in or 
 over a vessel after its arrival voluntarily in her ports. And so 
 she might close all her ports to the ships of all nations. A 
 state may also declare, in the absence of treaty stipulations, 
 that foreigners shall not sue in her courts, nor travel in her 
 territories, nor carry away funds or goods received for debts. 
 We need not inquire what would be the condition of a country 
 that should establish such laws, nor in what relation they would 
 leave her toward the states of the civilized world. Her power 
 to make such laws is unquestionable ; but, in the absence of 
 direct and positive enactments to that effect, the presumption 
 is that the opposites of these things exist. While her ports are 
 open to foreign trade, it is to be presumed that she expects 
 foreign ships to enter them, bringing with them the jurisdic- 
 tion of their own government, and the protection of its laws, 
 to the same extent that her ships and the ships of other com- 
 mercial states carry with them the jurisdiction of their re- 
 spective governments into the open ports of the world ; just 
 as it is presumed, while the contrary is not avowed, that 
 strangers may travel in a civilized country in a time of peace, 
 sue in its courts, and bring away their property. 
 
 A merchant vessel enters the port of a friendly state, and en- 
 joys while there the protection of her own laws, and is under 
 the jurisdiction of her own government, not in derogation of 
 the sovereignty of the place, but by the presumed allowance 
 or permission of that sovereignty. This permission or allow- 
 ance is founded on the comity of nations, like the other cases 
 which have been mentioned ; and this comity is part, and a 
 most important and valuable part, of the law of nations, to 
 which all nations are presumed to assent until they make their 
 dissent known. In the silence of any positive rule affirming, 
 or denying, or restraining the operation of foreign laws, their 
 tacit adoption is presumed, to the usual extent. It is upon this 
 ground that the courts of law expound contracts according to 
 the law of the place in which they are made ; and instances 
 almost innumerable exist in which, by the general practice of 
 civilized countries, the laws of one will be recognized and often 
 executed in another. This is the comity of nations ; and it is 
 upon this, as its solid basis, that the intercourse of civilized 
 states is maintained. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 89 
 
 But while that which has now been said is understood to be 
 the voluntary and adopted law of nations, in cases of the vol- 
 untary entry of merchant vessels into the ports of other coun- 
 tries, it is nevertheless true that vessels in such ports, only 
 through an overruling necessity, may place their claim for ex- 
 emption from interference on still higher principles ; that is to 
 say, principles held in more sacred regard by the comity, the 
 courtesy, or, indeed, the common sense of justice of all civilized 
 states. 
 
 Even in regard to cases of necessity, however, there are 
 things of an unfriendly and offensive character, which yet it 
 may not be easy to say that a nation might not do. For ex- 
 ample, a nation might declare her will to be, and make it the 
 law of her dominions, that foreign vessels cast away on her 
 shores should be lost to their owners, and subject to the ancient 
 law of wreck. Or a neutral state, while shutting her ports to 
 the armed vessels of belligerents, as she has a right to do, 
 might resolve on seizing and confiscating vessels of that de- 
 scription which should be driven to take shelter in her har- 
 bors by the violence of the storms of the ocean. But laws of 
 this character, however within the absolute competence of 
 governments, could only be passed, if passed at all, under will- 
 ingness to meet the last responsibility to which nations are 
 subjected. 
 
 The presumption is stronger, therefore, in regard to vessels 
 driven into foreign ports by necessity, and seeking only tem- 
 porary refuge, than in regard to those which enter them vol- 
 untarily, and for purposes of trade, that they will not be inter- 
 fered with ; and that, unless they commit, while in port, some 
 act against the laws of the place, they will be permitted to re- 
 ceive supplies, to repair damages, and to depart unmolested. 
 
 If, therefore, vessels of the United States, pursuing lawful 
 voyages from port to port along their own shore, are driven 
 by stress of weather, or carried by unlawful force, into English 
 ports, the government of the United States can not consent 
 that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage 
 of such misfortunes, and enter them for the purpose of inter- 
 fering with the condition of persons or things on board, as 
 established by their own laws. If slaves, the property of 
 citizens of the United States, escape into the British territories, 
 it is not expected that they will be restored. In that case, the 
 territorial jurisdiction of England will have become exclusive 
 over them, and must decide their condition. But slaves on 
 board of American vessels, lying in British waters, are not 
 within the exclusive jurisdiction of England, or under the ex- 
 clusive operation of English law ; and this founds the broad 
 distinction between the cases. If persons, guilty of crimes in 
 
90 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the United States, seek an asylum in the British dominions, 
 they will not be demanded, until provision for such cases be 
 made by treaty ; because the giving up of criminals, fugitive 
 from justice, is agreed and understood to be a matter in which 
 every nation regulates its conduct according to its own discre- 
 tion. It is no breach of comity to refuse such surrender. 
 
 On the other hand, vessels of the United States, driven by 
 necessity into British ports, and staying there no longer than 
 such necessity exists, violating no law, nor having intent to 
 violate any law, will claim, and there will be claimed for them, 
 protection and security, freedom from molestation, and from 
 all interference with the character or condition of persons or 
 things on board. In the opinion of the government of the 
 United States, such vessels, so driven and so detained by ne- 
 cessity in a friendly port, ought to be regarded as still pursuing 
 their original voyage, and turned out of their direct course only 
 by disaster, or by wrongful violence ; that they ought to receive 
 all assistance necessary to enable them to resume that direct 
 course ; and that interference and molestation by the local au- 
 thorities, where the whole voyage is lawful, both in act and in- 
 tent, is ground for just and grave complaint. 
 
 Your lordship's discernment and large experience in affairs 
 can not fail to suggest to you how important it is to merchants 
 and navigators engaged in the coasting trade of a country so 
 large in extent as the United States, that they should feel se- 
 cure against all but the ordinary causes of maritime loss. The 
 possessions of the two governments closely approach each 
 other. This proximity, which ought to make us friends and 
 good neighbors, may, without proper care and regulation, it- 
 self prove a ceaseless cause of vexation, irritation, and dis- 
 quiet. 
 
 If your lordship has no authority to enter into a stipulation 
 by treaty for the prevention of such occurrences hereafter as 
 have already happened, occurrences so likely to disturb that 
 peace between the two countries which it is the object of your 
 lordship's mission to establish and confirm, you may still be so 
 far acquainted with the sentiments of your government as to 
 be able to engage that instructions shall be given to the local 
 authorities in the islands, which shall lead them to regulate 
 their conduct in conformity with the rights of citizens of the 
 United States, and the just expectations of their government, 
 and in such manner as shall, in future, take away all reasona- 
 ble ground of complaint. It would be with the most profound 
 regret that the President should see that, while it is now hoped 
 so many other subjects of difference may be harmoniously ad- 
 justed, nothing should be done in regard to this dangerous 
 source of future collisions. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 91 
 
 I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your lordship the 
 assurances of my distinguished consideration. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, August 6, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — You may be well assured that I am duly sensible of 
 the great importance of the subject to which you call my at- 
 tention in the note which you did me the honor of addressing 
 me the 1st instant, in which you inform me that the President 
 had been pleased to express his regret that 1 was not empow- 
 ered by my government to enter into a formal stipulation for 
 the better security of vessels of the United States when meet- 
 ing with disasters in passing between the United States and 
 the Bahama Islands, and driven by such disasters into British 
 ports. 
 
 It is, I believe, unnecessary that I should tell you that the 
 case of the Creole was known in London a few days only be- 
 fore my departure. No complaint had at that time been made 
 by Mr. Everett. The subject was not, therefore, among those 
 which it was the immediate object of my mission to discuss. 
 But at the same time I must admit that, from the moment I 
 was acquainted with the facts of this case, I was sensible of all 
 its importance, and I should not think myself without power 
 to consider of some adjustment of, and remedy for, a great ac- 
 knowledged difficulty, if I could see my way clearly to any 
 satisfactory course, and if I had not arrived at the conclusion, 
 after very anxious consideration, that, for the reasons which 1 
 will state, this question had better be treated in London, where 
 it will have a much increased chance of settlement on terms 
 likely to satisfy the interests of the United States. 
 
 The immediate case of the Creole would be easily disposed 
 of, but involves a class and description of cases which, for the 
 purpose of affording that security you seek for the trade of 
 America through the Bahama Channel, brings into considera- 
 tion questions of law, both national and international, of the 
 highest importance ; and, to increase the delicacy and diffi- 
 culty of the subject, public feeling is sensitively alive to every 
 thing connected with it. These circumstances bring me to 
 the conviction that, although I really believe that much may 
 be done to meet the wishes of your government, the means of 
 doing so would be best considered in London, where immediate 
 reference may be had to the highest authorities on every point 
 of delicacy and difficulty that may arise. Whatever I might 
 attempt would be more or less under the disadvantage of be- 
 ing fettered by apprehensions of responsibility, and I might 
 
92 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 thereby be kept within Hmits which my government at home 
 might disregard. In other words, I beUeve you would have 
 a better chance in this settlement with them than with me. 
 I state this after some imperfect endeavors, by correspond- 
 ence, to come at satisfactory explanations. If I were in this 
 instance treating of ordinary material interests, I should pro- 
 ceed with more confidence ; but, anxious as I unfeignedly am 
 that all questions likely to disturb the future understanding be- 
 tween us should be averted, I strongly recommend this ques- 
 tion of the security of the Bahama Channel being referred for 
 discussion in London. 
 
 This opinion is more decidedly confirmed by your very elab- 
 orate and important argument on the application of the gen- 
 eral principles of the law of nations to these subjects — an argu- 
 ment to which your authority necessarily gives great weight, 
 but in which I would not presume to follow you with my own 
 imperfect means. Great Britain and the United States, cov- 
 ering all the seas of the world with their commerce, have the 
 greatest possible interest in maintaining sound and pure princi- 
 ples of international law, as well as the practice of reciprocal 
 aid and good offices in all their harbors and possessions. With 
 respect to the latter, it is satisfactory to know that the dispo- 
 sition of the respective governments and people leaves little to 
 be desired, with the single exception of those very delicate and 
 perplexing questions which have recently arisen from the state 
 of slavery, and even these seem confined, and likely to continue 
 to be confined, to the narrow passage of the Bahama Channel. 
 At no other part of the British possessions are American ves- 
 sels with slaves ever likely to touch, nor are they likely to touch 
 there otherwise than from the pressure of very urgent neces- 
 sity. The difficulty, therefore, as well as the desired remedy, 
 is apparently confined within narrow limits. 
 
 Upon the great general principles affecting this case we do 
 not differ. You admit that if slaves, the property of American 
 citizens, escape into British territories, it is not expected that 
 they will be restored ; and you may be well assured that there 
 is no wish on our part that they should reach our shores, or 
 that British possessions should be used as decoys for the vio- 
 lators of the laws of a friendly neighbor. 
 
 When these slaves do reach us, by whatever means, there is 
 no alternative. The present state of British law is in this re- 
 spect too well known to require repetition ; nor need I remind 
 you that it is exactly the same with the laws of every part of the 
 United States where a state of slavery is not recognized ; and 
 that the slave put on shoi^e at Nassau would be dealt with ex- 
 actly as would a foreign slave landed, under any circumstan- 
 ces whatever, at Boston. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 93 
 
 But what constitutes the being within British dominion, from 
 which these consequences are to follow ? Is a vessel passing 
 through the Bahama Channel, and forced involuntarily, either 
 from storm or mutiny, into British waters, to be so considered ? 
 What power have the authorities of those islands to take cog- 
 nizance of persons or property in such vessels ? These are 
 questions which you, sir, have discussed at great length, and 
 with evident ability. Although you have advanced some prop- 
 ositions which rather surprise and startle me, I do not pretend 
 to judge them ; but what is very clear is, that great principles 
 are involved in a discussion which it would ill become me light- 
 ly to enter upon ; and I am confirmed by this consideration in 
 wishing that the subject be referred to where it will be per- 
 fectly weighed and examined. 
 
 It behooves the authorities of our two governments well to 
 guard themselves against establishing by their diplomatic in- 
 tercourse false precedents and principles, and that they do not, 
 for the purpose of meeting a passing difficulty, set examples 
 which may hereafter mislead the world. 
 
 It is not intended on this occasion to consider in detail the 
 particular instances which have given rise to these discussions. 
 They have already been stated and explained. Our object is 
 rather to look to the means of future prevention of such occur- 
 rences. That this may be obtained, I have little doubt, al- 
 though we may not be able immediately to agree on the pre- 
 cise stipulations of a treaty. On the part of Great Britain, there 
 are certain great principles too deeply rooted in the consciences 
 and sympathies of the people for any minister to be able to 
 overlook ; and any engagement I might make in opposition to 
 them would be instantly disavowed ; but, at the same time that 
 we maintain our own laws within our own territories, we are 
 bound to respect those of our neighbors, and to listen to every 
 possible suggestion of means of averting from them every an- 
 noyance and injury. I have great confidence that this may be 
 effectually done in the present instance ; but the case to be met 
 and remedied is new, and must not be too hastily dealt with. 
 You may, however, be assured that measures so important for 
 the preservation of friendly intercourse between the two coun- 
 tries shall not be neglected. 
 
 In the mean time, I can engage that instructions shall be given 
 to the governors of her majesty's colonies on the southern bor- 
 ders of the United States to execute their own laws with care- 
 ful attention to the wish of their government to maintain good 
 neighborhood, and that there shall be no officious interference 
 with American vessels driven by accident or by violence into 
 those ports. The laws and duties of hospitality shall be exe- 
 cuted ; and these seem neither to require nor to justify any fur- 
 
94 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ther inquisition into the state of persons or things on board of 
 vessels so situated than may be indispensable to enforce the ob- 
 servance of the municipal law of the colony, and the proper 
 regulation of its harbors and waters. 
 
 A strict and careful attention to these rules, applied in good 
 faith to all transactions as they arise, will, I hope and believe, 
 without any abandonment of great and general principles, lead 
 to the avoidance of any excitement or agitation on this very 
 sensitive subject of slavery, and, consequently, of those irrita- 
 ting feelings which may have a tendency to bring into peril all 
 the great interests connected with the maintenance of peace. 
 
 I further trust that friendly sentiments, and a conviction of 
 the importance of cherishing them, will on all occasions lead 
 the two countries to consider favorably any further arrange- 
 ments which may be judged necessary for the reciprocal pro- 
 tection of their interests. 
 
 I hope, sir, that this explanation on this very important sub- 
 ject will be satisfactory to the President, and that he will see 
 in it no diminution of that earnest desire, which you have been 
 pleased to recognize in me, to perform my work of reconcilia- 
 tion and friendship ; but that he will rather perceive in my sug- 
 gestion, in this particular instance, that it is made with a well- 
 founded hope of thereby better obtaining the object we have 
 in view. 
 
 I beg to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my high con- 
 sideration. ASHBURTON. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Aslihurton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, August 8, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt ot 
 your lordship's note of the 6th instant, in answer to mine of the 
 1st, upon the subject of a stipulation for the better security of 
 American vessels driven by accident or carried by force into 
 the British West India ports. 
 
 The President would have been gratified if you had felt 
 yourself at liberty to proceed at once to consider of some 
 proper arrangement, by formal treaty, for this object ; but 
 there may be weight in the reasons which you urge for refer- 
 ring such mode of stipulation for consideration in London. 
 
 The President places his reliance on those principles of pub- 
 lic law which were stated in my note to your lordship, and 
 which are regarded as equally well founded and important ; 
 and on your lordship's engagement that instructions shall be 
 given to the governors of her majesty's colonies to execute 
 their own laws with careful attention to the wish of their gov- 
 ernment to maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall 
 
 ! 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 95 
 
 be no officious interference with American vessels driven by 
 accident or by violence into those ports ; that the laws and du- 
 ties of hospitality shall be executed, and that these seem nei- 
 ther to require nor to justify any further inquisition into the 
 state of persons or things on board of vessels so situated than 
 may be indispensable to enforce the observance of the munic- 
 ipal law of the colony, and the proper regulation of its harbors 
 and waters. He indulges the hope, nevertheless, that, actua- 
 ted by a just sense of what is due to the mutual interests of the 
 two countries, and the maintenance of a permanent peace be- 
 tween them, her majesty's government will not fail to see the 
 importance of removing, by such further stipulations, by treaty 
 or otherwise, as may be found to be necessary, all cause of 
 complaint connected with this subject. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lord- 
 ship's obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 IMPRESSMENT. 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, August 8, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — We have had several conversations on the sub- 
 ject of impressment, but I do not understand that your lordship 
 has instructions from your government to negotiate upon it, nor 
 does the government of the United States see any utility in 
 opening such negotiation, unless the British government is pre- 
 pared to renounce the practice in all future wars. 
 
 No cause has produced to so great an extent, and for so 
 long a period, disturbing and irritating influences on the politic- 
 al relations of the United States and England, as the impress- 
 ment of seamen by British cruisers from American merchant 
 vessels. 
 
 From the commencement of the French Revolution to the 
 breaking out of the war between the two countries in 1812, 
 hardly a year elapsed without loud complaint and earnest re- 
 monstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the right claimed, 
 and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently 
 exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity 
 would have dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, 
 took possession of the public mind of America, and this feeling, 
 it is well known, co-operated most powerfully with other causes 
 to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. 
 
 At different periods, both before and since the war, negoti- 
 ations have taken place between the two governments, with 
 the hope of finding some means of quieting these complaints. 
 
96 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 At some times, the effectual abolition of the practice has been 
 requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary suspen- 
 sion ; and at other times, again, the limitation of its exercise 
 and some security against its enormous abuses. 
 
 A common destiny has attended these efforts ; they have all 
 failed. The question stands at this moment where it stood fifty 
 years ago. The nearest approach to a settlement was a con- 
 vention proposed in 1803, and which had come to the point of 
 signature, when it was broken off in consequence of the British 
 government insisting that the narrow seas should be expressly 
 excepted out of the sphere over which the contemplated stip- 
 ulations against impressment should extend. The American 
 minister, Mr. King, regarded this exception as quite inadmis- 
 sible, and chose rather to abandon the negotiation than to ac- 
 quiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. 
 
 England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in 
 time of war, out of neutral merchant vessels, and of deciding 
 by her visiting officers who, among the crews of such merchant 
 vessels, are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal exer- 
 cise of the prerogative of the crown ; which prerogative is al- 
 leged to be founded on the English law of the perpetual and in- 
 dissoluble allegiance of the subject, and his obligation, under all 
 circumstances, and for his whole life, to render military service 
 to the crown whenever required. 
 
 This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, 
 shows at once that the English claim is far broader than the 
 basis or platform on which it is raised. The law relied on is 
 English law ; the obligations insisted on are obligations exist- 
 ing between the crown of England and its subjects. This law 
 and these obligations, it is admitted, may be such as England 
 may choose they shall be. But, then, they must be confined to 
 the parties. Impressment of seamen, out of and beyond En- 
 glish territory, and from on board the ships of other nations, is 
 an interference with the rights of other nations ; is further, 
 therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend ; and is 
 nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England 
 beyond the dominions and jurisdiction of the crown. The 
 claim asserts an extra territorial authority for the law of British 
 prerogative, and assumes to exercise this extra territorial au- 
 thority, to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens 
 and subjects of other states, on board their own vessels on the 
 high seas. 
 
 Every merchant vessel on the seas is rightfully considered 
 as part of the territory of the country to which it belongs. 
 The entry, therefore, into such vessel, being neutral, by a bellig- 
 erent is an act of force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a tres- 
 pass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 97 
 
 allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. 
 But a British cruiser enters an American merchant vessel in 
 order to take therefrom supposed British subjects ; offering no 
 justification, therefore, under the law of nations, but claiming 
 the right under the law of England respecting the king's pre- 
 rogative. This can not be defended. English soil, English 
 territory, English jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the 
 operation of English law. The ocean is the sphere of the law 
 of nations ; and any merchant vessel on the seas is, by that law, 
 under the protection of the laws of her own nation, and may 
 claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her 
 to be entered or visited. 
 
 If this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent 
 power of the prerogative, was the law of the world ; if it term- 
 ed part of the conventional code of nations, and was usually 
 practiced like the right of visiting neutral ships, for the purpose 
 of discovering and seizing enemy property, then impressment 
 might be defended as a common right, and there would be no 
 remedy for the evil till the national code should be altered. 
 But this is by no means the case. There is no such principle 
 incorporated into the code ot nations. The doctrine stands 
 only as English law, not as a national law ; and English law 
 can not be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever 
 duties or relations thai law creates between the sovereign and 
 his subjects can be enforced and maintained only within the 
 realm, or proper possessions or territory of the sovereign. 
 There may be quite as just a prerogative right to the property 
 of subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the 
 state ; but no government thinks of controlling by its own laws 
 property of its subjects situated abroad ; much less does any 
 government think of entering the territory of another power 
 for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to its 
 own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England 
 have no obligation on persons or property domiciled or situated 
 abroad. 
 
 " When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unre- 
 garded on either side of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right 
 of a state to bind its own native subjects every where, we 
 speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over 
 them when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, 
 and not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, 
 on the part of other nations, within their own territorial sov- 
 ereignty. On the contrary, every nation has an exclusive right 
 to regulate persons and things within its own territory, accord- 
 ing to its sovereign will and public polity." 
 
 The good sense of these principles, their remarkable perti- 
 nency to the subject now under consideration, and the extra- 
 
 G 
 
98 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ordinary consequences resulting from the British doctrine, are 
 signally manifested by that which we see taking place every 
 day. England acknowledges herself overburdened with popu- i 
 lation of the poorer classes. Every instance of the emigration [] 
 of persons of those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. 
 England, therefore, encourages emigration ; means are notori- 
 ously supplied to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, from 
 public funds ; and the New World, and most especially these 
 United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus 
 ejected from the bosom of their native land by the necessities 
 of their condition. They come away from poverty and dis- 
 tress in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, comfort, and 
 new homes in a country of free institutions, possessed by a 
 kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws 
 and usages in many respects like those to which they have 
 been accustomed -, and a country which, upon the whole, is 
 found to possess more attractions for persons of their character 
 and condition than any other on the face of the globe. It is 
 stated that, in the quarter of the year ending with June last, 
 more than twenty-six thousand emigrants leit the single port 
 of Liverpool for the United States,' being four or five times as 
 many as left the same port within the same period for the 
 British colonies and all other parts of the world. Of these 
 crowds of emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circum- 
 stances of great destitution, and the chaiUies of the country, 
 both public and private, are severely taxed to relieve their im- 
 mediate wants. In time they mingle with the new community 
 in which they find themselves, and seek means of living ; some 
 find employment in the cities, others go to the frontiers, to cul- 
 tivated lands reclaimed from the forest ; and a greater or less 
 number of the residue, becoming in time naturalized citizens, 
 enter into the merchant service under the flag of their adopted 
 country. 
 
 Now, my lord, if war should break out between England and 
 a European power, can any thing be more unjust, any thing 
 more irreconcilable to the general sentiments of mankind, than 
 that England should seek out these persons, thus encouraged 
 by her, and compelled by their own condition to leave their 
 native homes, tear them away from their new employments, 
 their new political relations, and their domestic connections, 
 and force them to undergo the dangers and hardships of mili- 
 tary service for a country which has thus ceased to be their 
 own country 1 Certainly, certainly, my lord, there can be but 
 one answer to this question. Is it not far more reasonable that 
 England should either prevent such emigration of her subjects, 
 or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, 
 not to the embroilment of a double and a contradictory alle- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 99 
 
 giance, but to their own voluntary choice, to form such rela- 
 tions, political or social, as they see fit in the country where 
 they are to find their bread, and to the laws and institutions 
 of which they are to look for defense and protection ? 
 
 A question of such serious importance ought now to be put 
 at rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to 
 those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their 
 shores; if, by the benign influences of their government and 
 institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those 
 emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it 
 easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake 
 in the enjoyment of all civil rights ; if all this may be done 
 (and all this is done, under the countenance and encourage- 
 ment of England herself), is it not high time, my lord, that, 
 yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent 
 with the present state of society, and especially with the inter- 
 course and relations subsisting between the Old World and the 
 New, England should, at length, formally disclaim all right to 
 the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their 
 conduct ? 
 
 But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider 
 range. If it could be justified in its application to those who 
 are declared to be its only objects, it still remains true that, in 
 its exercise, it touches the political rights of other governments, 
 and endangers the security of their own native subjects and 
 citizens. The sovereignty of the state is concerned in main- 
 taining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its mer- 
 chant ships on the seas, except so far as the law of nations 
 justifies intrusion upon that possession for special purposes ; 
 and all experience has shown that no member of a crew, wher- 
 ever born, is safe against impressment when a ship is visited. 
 
 The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can 
 hardly be overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be 
 such as should lead to its relinquishment, even if it were found- 
 ed in any defensible principle. The difficulty of discriminating 
 between English subjects and American citizens has always 
 been found to be great, even when an honest purpose of dis- 
 crimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, 
 having necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and 
 his decisions will be quite as significant of his own wants and 
 his own power as of the truth and justice of the case. An ex- 
 tract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to 
 the American Secretary of State, shows something of the enor- 
 mous extent of these wrongful seizures : 
 
 " Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal 
 cases, I have," says he, " since the month of July past, made 
 application for the discharge, from British men-of-war, of two 
 
100 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, stating themselves to 
 be Americans, have claimed my interference. Of this number 
 eighty-six have been ordered by the Admiralty to be discharg- 
 ed, thirty-seven more have been detained as Britisl^subjects or 
 as American volunteers, or for want of proof that they are 
 Americans, and to my applications for the discharge of the re- 
 maining one hundred and forty-eight I have received no an- 
 swer ; the ships on board of which these seamen were detained 
 having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was 
 made in consequence of my application. 
 
 " It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are 
 not American citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, 
 few, and the evidence, exclusive of certificates, has been such 
 as, in most cases, to satisfy me that the applicants were real 
 Americans, who have been forced into the British service, and 
 who, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in 
 refusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have 
 been in service more than two years." 
 
 But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to 
 its immediate subjects or the individuals on whom it is prac- 
 ticed. Vessels suffer from the weakening of their crews, and 
 voyages are often delayed, and not unfrequently broken up, by 
 subtraction from the number of necessary hands by impress- 
 ment. And what is still of greater and more general moment, 
 the fear of impressment has been found to create great diffi- 
 culty in obtaining sailors for the American merchant service in 
 times of European war. Sea-faring men, otherwise inclined to 
 enter into that service, are, as experience has shown, deterred 
 by the fear of finding themselves ere long in compulsory mili- 
 tary service in British ships of war. Many instances have 
 occurred, fully established in proof, in which raw seamen, 
 natives of the United States, fresh from the fields of agricul- 
 ture, entering for the first time on shipboard, have been im- 
 pressed before they made the land, placed on the decks of 
 British men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before 
 they could obtain their release, or revisit their country and 
 their homes. Such instances become known, and their effect 
 in discouraging young men from engaging in the merchant 
 service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered 
 at. More than all, my lord, the practice of impressment, 
 whenever it has existed, has produced not conciliation and 
 good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, and animosity be- 
 tween the two great commercial countries of the world. 
 
 In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war — 
 a condition so favorable for dispassionate consideration — En- 
 gland herself has evidently seen the harshness of impressment, 
 even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 101 
 
 and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the 
 power or to aboHsh the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its 
 necessity by other means of manning the royal navy more com- 
 patible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more 
 conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the government of the United 
 States has used the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission 
 to review this whole subject, and to bring it to your notice and 
 that of your government. It has reflected on the past, ponder- 
 ed the condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, 
 so far as might be in its power, the probable future ; and I am 
 now to communicate to your lordship the result of these delib- 
 erations. 
 
 The American government, then, is prepared to say that the 
 practice of impressing seamen from American vessels can not 
 hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded 
 on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably at- 
 tended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such 
 formidable magnitude, as can not be submitted to. 
 
 In the early disputes between the two governments on this 
 so long -contested topic, the distinguished person to whose 
 hands were first intrusted the seals of this department, declar- 
 ed, that " the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being Amer- 
 ican, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such." 
 
 Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotia- 
 tions, and a careful reconsideration, now had, of the whole sub- 
 ject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and no present in- 
 terest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully con- 
 vinced this government that this is not only the simplest and 
 best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, 
 consistently with the rights and honor of the United States and 
 the security of their citizens. That rule announces, therefore, 
 what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their gov- 
 ernment. In every regularly-documented American merchant 
 vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in 
 the flag which is over them. 
 
 This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless 
 recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which 
 have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of 
 peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires 
 effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. 
 The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake 
 of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious convic- 
 tion that high interests of both nations require this so long- 
 contested and controverted subject now to be finally put to 
 rest, I persuade myself, my lord, that you will do justice to 
 this frank and sincere avowal of motives, and that you will 
 
102 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 communicate your sentiments in this respect to your govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Tliis letter closes, my lord, on my part, our official corre- 
 spondence ; and I gladly use the occasion to offer you the as- 
 surance of my high and sincere regard. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, August 9, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 
 8th instant, on the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted 
 without delay to my government, and will, you may be assured, 
 receive from them the deliberate attention which its import- 
 ance deserves. 
 
 The object of my mission was mainly the settlement of ex- 
 isting subjects of difference ; and no differences have or could 
 have arisen of late years with respect to impressment, because 
 the practice has, since the peace, wholly ceased, and can not, 
 consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her 
 majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed. 
 
 Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to an- 
 ticipate even possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of 
 the anxiety of the American people on this grave subject of 
 past irritation, I should be sorry in any way to discourage the 
 attempt at some settlement of it ; and, although without au- 
 thority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of 
 my mission, I entertain a confident hope that this task may be 
 accomplished, when undertaken, with the spirit of candor and 
 conciliation which has marked all our late negotiations. 
 
 It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any 
 agreement on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from 
 noticing at length your very ingenious arguments relating to it, 
 and from discussing the graver matters of constitutional and in- 
 ternational law growing out of them. These sufficiently show 
 that the question is one requiring calm consideration ; though 
 I must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong neces- 
 sity of some settlement for the preservation of that good un- 
 derstanding which, I trust, we may flatter ourselves that our 
 joint labors have now succeeded in establishing. 
 
 I am well aware that the laws of our two countries main- 
 tain opposite principles respecting allegiance to the sovereign. 
 America, receiving every year by thousands the emigrants of 
 Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her condition of the 
 right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great 
 Britain have maintained from all time the opposite doctrine. 
 The duties of allegiance are held to be indefeasible ; and it is 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPtlRS. 103 
 
 believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, pre- 
 vails in most, if not in all, the civilized states of Europe. 
 
 Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of 
 the world peaceably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and 
 eminently for the benefit of humanity. The fertile deserts of 
 America are gradually advancing to the highest state of culti- 
 vation and production, while the emigrant acquires comfort 
 which his own confined home could not afford him. 
 
 If there were any thing in our laws or our practice on either 
 side tending to impede this march of providential humanity, 
 we could not be too eager to provide a remedy ; but as this 
 does not appear to be the case, we may safely leave this part of 
 the subject without indulging in abstract speculations having 
 no material practical application to matters in discussion be- 
 tween us. 
 
 But it must be admitted that a serious practical question does 
 arise, or, rather, has existed, from practices formerly attending 
 the mode of manning the British navy in times of war. The 
 principle is, that all subjects of the crown are, in case of neces- 
 sity, bound to serve their country, and the sea-faring man is 
 naturally taken for the naval service. This is not, as is some- 
 times supposed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical gov- 
 ernment, but one founded on the natural duty of every man to 
 defend the life of his country ; and all the analogy of your laws 
 would lead to the conclusion that the same principle would 
 hold good in the United States if their geographical position 
 did not make its application unnecessary. 
 
 The very anomalous condition of the two countries with re- 
 lation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. Our peo- 
 ple are not distinguishable ; and, owing to the peculiar habits 
 of sailors, our vessels are very generally manned from a com- 
 mon stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to exe- 
 cute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for 
 the existence of the country, without risk of injury to others. 
 The extent and importance of those injuries, however, are so 
 formidable that it is admitted that some remedy should, if pos- 
 sible, be applied ; at all events, it must be fairly and honestly 
 attempted. It is true that during the continuance of peace no 
 practical grievance can arise ; but it is also true that it is for 
 that reason the proper season for the calm and deliberate con- 
 sideration of an important subject. I have much reason to hope 
 that a satisfactory arrangement respecting it may be made, so 
 as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety ; and I will only 
 further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my 
 government favorably to consider all matters having for their 
 object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and 
 friendly feelings with the United States. 
 
104 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence 
 with you connected with reiy mission, to express the satisfaction 
 I feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my 
 high consideration and personal esteem and regard. 
 
 ASHBURTON. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 INVIOLABILITY OF NATIONAL TERRITORY. 
 
 CASE OF THE " CAROLINE." 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashhurton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, July 27, 1842. 
 
 My Lord, — In relation to the case of the " Caroline," which 
 we have heretofore made the subject of conference, I have 
 thought it right to place in your hands an extract of a letter 
 from this department to Mr. Fox, of the 24th of April, 1841, 
 and an extract from the message of the President of the United 
 States to Congress at the commencement of its present session. 
 These papers you have, no doubt, already seen ; but they are, 
 nevertheless, now communicated, as such commujiication is 
 considered a ready mode of presenting the view which this 
 government entertains of the destruction of that vessel. 
 
 The act of which the government of the United States com- 
 plains is not to be considered as justifiable or unjustifiable, as 
 the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the employ- 
 ment in which the " Caroline" was engaged may be decided the 
 one way or the other. That act is of itself a wrong, and an 
 offense to the sovereignty and the dignity of the United States, 
 being a violation of their soil and territory — a wrong for which, 
 to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been made by 
 her majesty's government. Your lordship can not but be 
 aware that self-respect, the consciousness of independence and 
 national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever may touch 
 the honor of the country — a sensitiveness which this govern- 
 ment will ever feel and ever cultivate — make this a matter of 
 high importance, and I must be allowed to ask for it your lord- 
 ship's grave consideration. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obe- 
 dient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 
 
 24, 1841. 
 
 ******** 
 
 The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the 
 government of the United States has not changed the opinion 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 105 
 
 which it has heretofore expressed to her majesty's government 
 of the character of the act of destroying the " Caroline." 
 
 It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any 
 reasonable application or construction of the right of self-de- 
 fense under the law of nations. It is admitted that a just right 
 of self-defense attaches always to nations as well as to individ- 
 uals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. 
 But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the 
 circumstances of each particular case ; and when its alleged 
 exercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the 
 territory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and 
 absolute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not hav- 
 ing up to this time been made acquainted with the views and 
 reasons at length which have led her majesty's government to 
 think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable, as an act of 
 self-defense, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remon- 
 strance of this government against the transaction, abstains 
 for the present from any extended discussion of the question. 
 But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some 
 notice of the general grounds of justification stated by her maj- 
 esty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Her majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, 
 that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated 
 in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employ- 
 ment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory 
 from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
 American pirates, who, having been " permitted" to arm and 
 organize themselves within the territory of the United States, 
 had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 
 
 The President can not suppose that her majesty's govern- 
 ment, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as in- 
 timating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States 
 and disturbing the peace of the British territory, were done 
 under any degree of countenance from this government, or 
 were regarded by it wath indifference, or that, under the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by 
 any ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets that, 
 by using the term " permitted," a possible inference of that kind 
 might be raised ; yet such an inference, the President is willing 
 to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British 
 government. 
 
 That on a line of frontier, such as separates the United States 
 from her Britannic majesty's North American provinces — a 
 line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halves — 
 irregularities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, 
 equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily 
 to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard 
 
106 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 to the United States, without any reproach to their govern- 
 ment, since their institutions entirely discourage the keeping 
 up of large standing armies in time of peace, and their situa- 
 tion happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining 
 such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can be 
 expected from either government, in these cases, is good faith, 
 a sincere desire to preserve peace and do justice, the use of all 
 proper means of prevention, and that, if offenses can not, nev- 
 ertheless, be always prevented, the ofienders shall still be justly 
 punished. In all these respects, this government acknowledges 
 no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 
 
 Her majesty's government are pleased, also, to speak of 
 those American citizens who took part with persons in Canada, 
 engaged in an insurrection against the British government, as 
 " American pirates." The undersigned does not admit the pro- 
 priety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the United 
 States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a military ex- 
 pedition from the United States, intended to act against the 
 British government in Canada, they were clearly violating the 
 laws of their own country, and exposing themselves to the just 
 consequences which might be inflicted on them if taken within 
 the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they were 
 certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that it can 
 advance the purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or hasten 
 the accommodation of national difficulties, so to denominate 
 them. Their offense, whatever it was, had no analogy to cases 
 of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against them to be 
 true, they were taking a part in what they regarded as a civil 
 war, and they were taking a part on the side of the rebels. 
 Surely England herself has not regarded persons thus engaged 
 as deserving the appellation which her majesty's government 
 bestows on these citizens of the United States. 
 
 It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last two 
 centuries, subjects of the British crown have been permitted to 
 engage in foreign wars, both national and civil, and in the lat- 
 ter in every stage of their progress ; and yet it has not been 
 imagined that England has at any time allowed her subjects to 
 turn pirates. Indeed, in our own times, not only have individ- 
 ual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in civil wars, 
 but we have seen whole regiments openly recruited, embodied, 
 armed, and disciplined in England, with the avowed purpose 
 of aiding a rebellion against a nation with which England was 
 at peace ; although it is true that, subsequently, an act of Par- 
 liament was passed to prevent transactions so nearly approach- 
 ing to public war, without license from the crown. 
 
 It may be said that there is a diflference between the case of 
 a civil war arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted 
 
 I 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 107 
 
 revolt of a colony against the mother country, and the case of 
 the fresh outbreak or commencement of a rebellion. The un- 
 dersigned does not deny that such a distinction may, for cer- 
 tain purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a gov- 
 ernment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and 
 duties, when civil wars break out in other countries, may de- 
 cide on all the circumstances of the particular case upon its 
 own existing stipulations, on probable results, on what its own 
 security requires, and on many other considerations. It may 
 be already bound to assist one party, or it may become bound, 
 if it so chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the consequen- 
 ces of such assistance. 
 
 But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they who 
 join those concerned in it, whatever may be their offense against 
 their own country, or however they may be treated, if taken 
 with arms in their hands in the territory of the government 
 against which the standard of revolt is raised, can not be de- 
 nominated pirates without departing from all ordinary use of 
 language in the definition of offenses. A cause which has so 
 foul an origin as piracy can not, in its progress or by its suc- 
 cess, obtain a claim to any degree of respectability or tolerance 
 among nations ; and civil wars, therefore, are not understood 
 to have such a commencement. 
 
 It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest 
 eminence in England, living and dead, have maintained that 
 the general law of nations does not forbid the citizens or sub- 
 jects of one government from taking part in the civil commo- 
 tions of another. There is some reason, indeed, to think that 
 such may be the opinion of her majesty's government at the 
 present moment. 
 
 The undersigned has made these remarks from the convic- 
 tion that it is important to regard established distinctions, and 
 to view the acts and offenses of individuals in the exactly prop- 
 er hght. But it is not to be inferred that there is, on the part 
 of this government, any purpose of extenuating in the slightest 
 degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the United States, 
 who have joined in military expeditions against the British 
 government in Canada. On the contrary, the President di- 
 rects the undersigned to say, that it is his fixed resolution that 
 all such disturbers of the national peace, and violators of the 
 laws of their country, shall be brought to exemplary punish- 
 ment. Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led on to 
 these excesses by British subjects, refugees from the provinces, 
 be deemed any excuse or palliation ; although it is well worthy 
 of being remembered that the prime movers of these disturb- 
 ances on the borders are subjects of the queen, who come with- 
 in the territories of the United States, seeking to enlist the sym- 
 
108 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 pathies of their citizens by all the motives which they are able 
 to address to them on account of grievances, real or imagina- 
 ry. There is no reason to believe that the design of any hos- 
 tile movement from the United States against Canada has com- 
 menced with citizens of the United States. The true origin of 
 such purposes ind such enterprises is on the other side of the line. 
 But the President's resolution to prevent these transgressions 
 is not, on that account, the less strong. It is taken, not only in 
 conformity to his duty under the provisions of existing laws, 
 but in full consonance with the established principles and prac- 
 tice of this government. 
 
 The government of the United States has not from the first 
 fallen into the doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent 
 of the duties of neutrality. It has held that, however it may 
 have been in less enlightened ages, the just interpretation of the 
 modern law of nations is, that neutral states are bound to be 
 strictly neutral ; and that it is a manifest and gross improprie- 
 ty for individuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other states, 
 and thus to be at war while their government is at peace. War 
 and peace are high national relations, which can properly be 
 established or changed only by nations themselves. 
 
 The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doc- 
 trine of non-intervention by one nation with the affairs of oth- 
 ers is liable to be essentially impaired if, while government re- 
 frains from interference, interference is still allowed to its sub- 
 jects, individually or in masses. It may happen, indeed, that 
 persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other re- 
 gions, and settle themselves on uncultivated lands in terri- 
 tories belonging to other states. This can not be prevented 
 by governments which allow the emigration of their subjects 
 and citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandon- 
 ed their own country, have no longer claim to its protec- 
 tion, nor is it longer responsible for their acts. Such cases, 
 therefore, if they occur, show no abandonment of the duty of 
 neutrality. 
 
 The government of the United States has not considered it 
 as sufficient to confine the duties of neutrality and non-inter- 
 ference to the case of governments whose territories lie adja- 
 cent to each other. The application of the principle may be 
 more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they re- 
 gard as being the same, if those territories be divided by half 
 the globe. The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger 
 of allowing individuals to make war on their own authority, or, 
 by mingling themselves in the belligerent operations of other 
 nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the policy or em- 
 broiling the relations of their own government. And the Unit- 
 ed States have been the first amonc; civilized nations to enforce 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 109 
 
 the observance of this just rule of neutrahty and peace, by spe- 
 cial and adequate legal enactments. In the infancy of this gov- 
 ernment, on the breaking out of the European wars v\^hich had 
 their origin in the French Revolution, Congress passed laws, 
 with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens of the United 
 States from taking part in those hostilities. 
 
 By these laws, it prescribed to the citizens of the United 
 States what it understood to be their duty, as neutrals, accord- 
 ing to the law of nations, and the duty, also, which they owed 
 to the interest and honor of their own country. 
 
 At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a 
 European power took up arms against their sovereign. Con- 
 gress, not diverted from the established system of the govern- 
 ment by any temporary considerations, not swerved from its 
 sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which it might 
 naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to 
 pass acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and 
 civil war. And these provisions of law have been continued, 
 revised, amended, and are in full force at the present moment. 
 Nor have they been a dead letter, since it is well known that 
 exemplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
 transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties 
 have fallen on individuals (citizens of the United States) en- 
 gaged in this very disturbance in Canada, with which the de- 
 struction of the Caroline was connected. And it is in Mr. Fox's 
 knowledge, also, that the act of Congress of March 10, 1838, 
 was passed for the precise purpose of more effectually restrain- 
 ing military enterprises from the United States into the British 
 provinces, by authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive 
 preventive means. The undersigned may add, that it stands 
 ' on the admission of very high British authority, that during the 
 recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of adventurers ap- 
 peared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 
 Canada to keep themselves in a state prepared for self-defense, 
 yet that these adventurers were acting by no means in accord- 
 ance with the feeling of the great mass of the American peo- 
 ple, or of the government of the United States. 
 
 This government, therefore, not only holds itself above re- 
 proach in every thing respecting the preservation of neutral- 
 ity, the observance of the principle of non-intervention, and the 
 strictest conformity, in these respects, to the rules of internation- 
 al law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice to 
 acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be followed 
 by others ; and that by its steady legislation on this most im- 
 portant subject, it has done something to promote peace and 
 good neighborhood among nations, and to advance the civiliza- 
 tion of mankind. 
 
110 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic majesty's 
 government shall present the grounds at length on which they 
 justify the local authorities of Canada in attacking and destroy- 
 ing the "Caroline," they will consider that the laws ofthe United 
 States are such as the undersigned has now represented them, 
 and that the government of the United States has always man- 
 ifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effectually and 
 impartially administered. If there have been cases in which 
 individuals, justly obnoxious to punishment, have escaped, this 
 is no more than happens in regard to other laws. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and under those immediately 
 connected with the transaction itself, it will be for her majes- 
 ty's government to show upon what state of facts and what 
 rules of national law, the destruction ofthe "Cai'oline" is to be 
 defended. It will be for that government to show a necessity 
 of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of 
 means, and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to 
 show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing 
 the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the ter- 
 ritories ofthe United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or 
 excessive ; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-de- 
 fense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly with- 
 in it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to 
 the persons on board the "Caroline" was impracticable, or 
 would have been unavailing. It must be shown that daylight 
 could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
 crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would 
 not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that 
 there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her 
 in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and 
 while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and 
 wounding others, and then drawing lier into the current, above 
 the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know wheth- 
 er there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or 
 the living with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills 
 the imagination with horror. A necessity for all this the 
 government of the United States can not believe to have ex- 
 isted. 
 
 All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they 
 must lead to bloody and exasperated war. And when an in- 
 dividual comes into the United States from Canada, and to the 
 very place on which this drama was performed, and there 
 chooses to make public and vainglorious boast of the part he 
 acted in it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should 
 be created, and some degree of commotion arise. 
 
 This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity ofthe 
 world ; its object is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no ag- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. Ill 
 
 grandizement by foreign conquest, because it knows that no 
 foreign acquisitions could augment its power and importance 
 so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural 
 growth, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. 
 But it can not admit that its government has not both the will and 
 the power to preserve its own neutrality, and to enforce the 
 observances of its own laws upon its own citizens. It is jealous 
 of its rights, and among others, and most especially, of the 
 right of the absolute immunity of its territory against aggres- 
 sion from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determin- 
 ation of this government fully and at all times to maintain, 
 while it will at the same time as scrupulously refrain from in- 
 fringing on the rights of others. 
 
 The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclu- 
 sion, that he confidently trusts that this and all other ques- 
 tions of difference between the two governments will be treat- 
 ed by both in the full exercise of such a spirit of candor, justice, 
 and mutual respect, as shall give assurance of the long con- 
 tinuance of peace between the two countries. 
 
 The. undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
 Mr. Fox of his high consideration. Daniel Webster. 
 
 Henry S. Fox, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and 1 
 Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, SfC. J 
 
 Extract from the Message of the President to Congress at the 
 commencement of the Second Session of the 21th Congress. 
 
 I regret that it is not in my power to make known to you 
 an equally satisfactory conclusion in the case of the "Caroline" 
 steamer, with the circumstances connected with the destruction 
 of which, in December, 1837, by an armed force fitted out in 
 the province of Upper Canada, you are already made acquaint- 
 ed. No such atonement as was due for the public wrong done 
 to the United States by this invasion of her territory, so wholly 
 irreconcilable with her rights as an independent power, has 
 yet been made. In the view taken by this government, the 
 inquiry whether the vessel was in the employment of those 
 who were prosecuting an unauthorized war against that prov- 
 ince, or was engaged by the owner in the business of trans- 
 porting passengers to and from Navy Island, in hopes of pri- 
 vate gain, which was most probably the case, in no degree 
 alters the real question at issue between the two governments. 
 This government can never concede to any foreign govern- 
 ment the power, except in a case of the most urgent and ex- 
 treme necessity, of invading its territory, either to arrest the 
 persons or destroy the property of those who may have vio- 
 lated the municipal laws of such foreign government, or have 
 disregarded their obligations arising under the law of nations. 
 
112 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 The territory of the United States must be regarded as sacredly- 
 secure against all such invasions, until they shall voluntarily 
 acknowledge inability to acquit themselves of their duties to 
 others ; and in announcing this sentiment, I do but affirm a 
 principle which no nation on earth would be more ready to 
 vindicate, at all hazards, than^the people and government of 
 Great Britain. If, upon a full investigation of all the facts, it 
 shall appear that the owner of the " Caroline" was governed 
 by a hostile intent, or had made common cause with those who 
 were in the occupancy of Navy Island, then, so far as he is 
 concerned, there can be no claim to indemnity for the destruc- 
 tion of his boat, which this government would feel itself bound 
 to prosecute, since he would have acted not only in derogation 
 of the rights of Great Britain, but in clear violation of the laws 
 of the United States. But that is a question which, however 
 settled, in no manner involves the higher consideration of the 
 violation of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. To rec- 
 ognize it as an admissible practice, that each government, in 
 its turn, upon any sudden and unauthorized outbreak, which, 
 on a frontier the extent of which renders it impossible for either 
 to have an efficient force on every mile of it, and which out- 
 break, therefore, neither may be able to suppress in a day, may 
 take vengeance into its own hands, and without even a re- 
 monstrance, and in the absence of any pressing or overruling 
 necessity, may invade the territory of the other, would inevi- 
 tably lead to results equally to be deplored by both. When 
 border collisions come to receive the sanction, or to be made 
 on the authority of either government, general war must be the 
 inevitable result. While it is the ardent desire of the United 
 States to cultivate the relations of peace with all nations, and 
 to fulfill all the duties of good neighborhood toward those who 
 possess territories adjoining their own, that very desire would 
 lead them to deny the right of any foreign power to invade 
 their boundary with an armed force. The correspondence 
 between the two governments on this subject will, at a future 
 day of your session, be submitted to your consideration ; and, 
 in the mean time, I can not but indulge the hope that the British 
 government will see the propriety of renouncing, as a rule of 
 future action, the precedent which has been set in the affair at 
 Schlosser. 
 
 Lord Ashhurton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, July 28, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — In the course of our conferences on the several subjects 
 of difference which it was the object of my mission to endeavor 
 to settle, the unfortunate case of the Caroline, with its attendant 
 consequences, could not escape our attention ; for although it 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 113 
 
 is not of a description to be susceptible of any settlement by a 
 convention or treaty, yet, being connected with the highest 
 considerations of national honor and dignity, it has given rise 
 at times to deep excitements, so as more than once to endan- 
 ger the maintenance of peace. 
 
 The note you did me the honor of addressing me on the 27th 
 instant reminds me that, however disposed your government 
 might be to be satisfied with the explanations which it has been 
 my duty to offer, the natural anxiety of the public mind re- 
 quires that these explanations should be more durably record- 
 ed in our correspondence, and you send me a copy of your 
 note to Mr. Fox, her Britannic majesty's minister here, and an 
 extract from the speech of the President of the United States 
 to Congress at the opening of the present session, as a ready 
 mode of presenting the view entertained on this subject by the 
 government of the United States. 
 
 It is so far satisfactory to perceive that we are perfectly 
 agreed as to the general principles of international law appli- 
 cable to this unfortunate case. Respect for the inviolable 
 character of the territory of independent nations is the most 
 essential foundation of civilization. It is useless to strengthen 
 a principle so generally acknowledged by any appeal to au- 
 thorities on international law, and you may be assured, sir, that 
 her majesty's government set the highest possible value on this 
 principle, and are sensible of their duty to support it by their 
 conduct and example, for the maintenance of peace and order 
 in the world. If a sense of moral responsibility were not a 
 sufficient security for their observance of this duty toward all 
 nations, it will be readily believed that the most common dic- 
 tates of interest and policy would lead to it in the case of a 
 long conterminous boundary of some thousand miles, with a 
 country of such great and growing power as the United 
 States of America, inhabited by a kindred race, gifted with 
 all its activity, and all its susceptibility on points of national 
 honor. 
 
 Every consideration, therefore, leads us to set as highly as 
 your government can possibly do, this paramount obligation of 
 reciprocal respect for the independent territory of each. But 
 however strong this duty may be, it is admitted by all writers, 
 by all jurists, by the occasional practice of all nations, not ex- 
 cepting your own, that a strong, overpowering necessity may 
 arise, when this great principle may and must be suspended. 
 It must be so for the shortest possible period, during the con- 
 tinuance of an admitted overruling necessity, and strictly con- 
 fined within the narrowest limits imposed by that necessity. 
 Self-defense is the first law of our nature, and it must be recog- 
 nized by every code which professes to regulate the condition 
 
114 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 and relations of man. Upon this modification, if I may so call 
 it, of the great general principle, we seem also to be agreed ; 
 and on this part of the subject I have done little more than re- 
 peat the sentiments, though in less forcible language, admitted 
 and maintained by you in the letter to which you refer me. 
 
 Agreeing, therefore, on the general principle, and on the pos- 
 sible exception to which it is liable, the only question between 
 us is whether this occurrence came within the limits fairly to 
 be assigned to such exception — whether, to use your words, 
 there was " that necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelm- 
 ing, leaving no choice of means," which preceded the destruc- 
 tion of the Caroline while moored to the shore of the United 
 States. Give me leave to say, sir, with all possible admiration 
 of your very ingenious discussion of the general principles 
 which are supposed to govern the right and practice of inter- 
 ference by the people of one country in the wars and quarrels 
 of others, that this part of your argument is little applicable to 
 our immediate case. If Great Britain, America, or any other 
 country suffer their people to fit out expeditions to take part in 
 distant quarrels, such conduct may, according to the circum- 
 stances of each case, be justly matter of complaint : and per- 
 haps these transactions have generally been in late times too 
 much overlooked or connived at. But the case we are consid- 
 ering is of a wholly different description, and may be best de- 
 termined by answering the following question : Supposing a 
 man standing on ground where you have no legal right to fol- 
 low him, has a weapon long enough to reach you, and is strik- 
 ing you down and endangering your life, how long are you 
 bound to wait for the assistance of the authority having the le- 
 gal power to relieve you? or, to bring the facts more imme- 
 diately home to the case, if cannon are moving and setting up 
 in a battery which can reach you, and are actually destroying 
 life and property by their fire, if you have remonstrated for 
 some time without effect, and see no prospect of relief, when 
 begins your right to defend yourself, should you have no other 
 means of doing so than by seizing your assailant on the verge 
 of a neutral territory ? 
 
 I am unwilling to recall to your recollection the particulars 
 of this case, but I am obliged very shortly to do so, to show 
 what was, at the lime, the extent of the existing justification ; for 
 upon this entirely depends the question whether a gross insult 
 has or has not been offered to the government and people of 
 the United States. 
 
 After some tumultuous proceedings in Upper Canada, which 
 were of short duration, and were suppressed by the militia of 
 the country, the persons criminally concerned in them took 
 refuge in the neighboring state of New York, and, with a very 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 115 
 
 large addition to their numbers openly collected, invaded the 
 Canadian territory, taking possession of Navy Island. 
 
 This invasion took place on the 16th of December, 1837 ; a 
 gradual accession of numbers and of military ammunition con- 
 tinued openly, and though under the sanction of no public au- 
 thority, at least with no public hinderance, until the 29th of the 
 same month, when several hundred men were collected, and 
 twelve pieces of ordnance, which could only have been pro- 
 cured from some public store or arsenal, were actually mount- 
 ed on Navy Island, and were used to fire within easy range 
 upon the unofiending inhabitants of the opposite shore. Re- 
 monstrances, wholly ineftectual, were made ; so ineffectual, in- 
 deed, that a militia regiment, stationed on the neighboring 
 American island, looked on without any attempt at interfer- 
 ence, while shots were fired from the American island itself. 
 This important fact stands on the best American authority, be- 
 ing stated in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, of the 6th of February, 
 1838, of Mr. Benton, attorney of the United States, the gentle- 
 man sent by your government to inquire into the facts of the 
 case, who adds, very properly, that he makes the statement 
 " with deep regret and mortification." 
 
 This force, Ibrmed of all the reckless and mischievous peo- 
 ple of the border, formidable from their numbers and from 
 their armament, had in their pay, and as part of their establish- 
 ment, this steam-boat Caroline, the important means and instru- 
 ment by which numbers and arms were hourly increasing. I 
 might safely put it to any candid man acquainted with the ex- 
 isting state of things, to say whether the military commander 
 in Canada had the remotest reason, on the 29th of December, 
 to expect to be relieved from this state of suffering by the pro- 
 tective intervention of any American authority. How long 
 could a government having the paramount duty of protecting 
 its own people be reasonably expected to wait for what they 
 had then no reason to expect? What would have been the 
 conduct of American officers ? what has been their conduct 
 under circumstances much less aggravated ? I would appeal 
 to you, sir, to say whether the facts which you say would 
 alone justify this act, viz., " a necessity of self-defense, instant, 
 overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment 
 for deliberation," were not applicable to this case in as high a 
 degree as they ever were to any case of a similar description 
 in the history of nations. 
 
 Nearly five years are now past since this occurrence ; there 
 has been time for the public to deliberate upon it calmly, and I 
 believe I may take it to be the opinion of candid and honorable 
 men that the British officers who executed this transaction, and 
 their government who approved it, intended no slight or disre- 
 
116 DIPLOA1AT1C AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 spect to the sovereign authority of the United States. That 
 they intended no such disrespect I can most solemnly affirm, 
 and I trust it will be admitted that no inference to the contrary 
 can fairly be drawn, even by the most susceptible on points of 
 national honor. 
 
 Notwithstanding my wish that the explanation I had to make 
 might not revive in any degree any feelings of irritation, I do 
 not see how I could treat this subject without this short recital 
 of facts, because the proof that no disrespect was intended is 
 mainly to be looked for in the extent of the justification. 
 
 There remains only a point or two which I should wish to 
 notice, to remove in some degree the impression which your 
 rather highly-colored description of this transaction is calculated 
 to make. The mode of telling a story often tends to distort 
 facts, and in this case more than in any other it is important 
 to arrive at plain, unvarnished truth. 
 
 It appears from every account that the expedition was sent 
 to capture the Caroline when she was expected to be found on 
 the British ground of Navy Island, and that it was only owing 
 to the orders of the rebel leader being disobeyed that she was 
 not so found. When the British officer came round the point 
 of the island in the night, he first discovered that the vessel was 
 moored to the other shore. He was not by this deterred from 
 making the capture, and his conduct was approved. But you 
 will perceive that there was here, most decidedly, the case of 
 justification mentioned in your note, that there should be " no 
 moment left for deliberation." I mention this circumstance to 
 show, also, that the expedition was not planned with a pre- 
 meditated purpose of attacking the enemy within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States, but that the necessity of so doing 
 arose from altered circumstances at the moment of execution. 
 
 I have only further to notice the highly-colored picture 
 drawn in your note of the facts attending the execution of this 
 service. Some importance is attached to the attack having 
 been made in the night, and the vessel having been set on fire 
 and floated down the falls of the river ; and it is insinuated, 
 rather than asserted, that there was carelessness as to the lives 
 of the persons on board. The account given by the distin- 
 guished officer who commanded the expedition distinctly re- 
 futes, or satisfactorily explains these assertions. The time of 
 night was purposely selected as most likely to insure the execu- 
 tion with the least loss of life ; and it is expressly stated that, 
 the strength of the current not permitting the vessel to be car- 
 ried oflT, and it being necessary to destroy her by fire, she was 
 drawn into the stream for the express purpose of preventing 
 injury to persons or property of the inhabitants at Schlosser. 
 
 I would willingly have abstained from a return to the facts 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 117 
 
 of this transaction — my duty being to offer those explanations 
 and assurances which may lead to satisfy the public mind, and 
 to the cessation of all angry feeling — but it appeared to me that 
 some explanation of parts of the case, apparently misunder- 
 stood, might be of service for this purpose. 
 
 Although it is believed that a candid and impartial considera- 
 tion of the whole history of this unfortunate event will lead to 
 the conclusion that there were grounds of justification as strong 
 as were ever presented in such cases, and, above all, that no 
 slight of the authority of the United States was ever intended, 
 yet it must be admitted that there was, in the hurried execution 
 of this necessary service, a violation of territory ; and I am in- 
 structed to assure you that hei majesty's government consider 
 this as a most serious fact, and that, far from thinking that an 
 event of this kind should be lightly risked, they would unfeign- 
 edly deprecate its recurrence. Looking back to what passed 
 at this distance of time, what is, perhaps, most to be regretted 
 is, that some explanation and apology for this occurrence was 
 not immediately made ; this, with a frank explanation of the 
 necessity of the case, might and probably would have prevent- 
 ed much of the exasperation, and of the subsequent complaints 
 and recriminations to which it gave rise. 
 
 There are possible cases in the relations of nations, as of in- 
 dividuals, where necessity, which controls all other laws, may 
 be pleaded ; but it is neither easy nor safe to attempt to define 
 the rights or limits properly assignable to such a plea. This 
 must always be a subject of much delicacy, and should be con- 
 sidered by friendly nations with great candor and forbearance. 
 The intentions of the parties must mainly be looked to ; and 
 can it for a moment be supposed that Great Britain would inten- 
 tionally and wantonly provoke a great and powerful neighbor? 
 
 Her majesty's government earnestly desire that a reciprocal 
 respect for the independent jurisdiction and authority of neigh- 
 boring states may be considered among the first duties of all 
 governments ; and I have to repeat the assurance of regret 
 they feel that the event of which I am treating should have dis- 
 turbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with 
 the American people and government. 
 
 Connected with these transactions there have also been cir- 
 cumstances of which, I believe, it is generally admitted that 
 Great Britain has also had just ground to complain. Individuals 
 have been made personally liable for acts done under the 
 avowed authority of their government ; and there are now 
 many brave men exposed to personal consequences for no other 
 cause than having served their country. That this is contrary 
 to every principle of international law it is useless for me to in- 
 sist. Indeed, it has been admitted by every authority of your 
 
118 DIPLOMATIC AND OrFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 government ; but, owing to a conflict of laws, difficulties have 
 intervened, much to the regret of those authorities, in giving 
 practical effect to these principles ; and for these difficulties 
 some remedy has been by all desired. It is no business of mine 
 to enter upon the consideration of them, nor have I sufficient 
 information for the purpose ; but I trust you will excuse my 
 addressing to you the inquiry whether the government of the 
 United States is now in a condition to secure, in effect and in 
 practice, the principle which has never been denied in argu- 
 ment, that individuals acting under legitimate authority are not 
 personally responsible for executing the orders of their govern- 
 ment ? That the power, when it exists, will be used on every 
 fit occasion, I am well assured ; and I am bound to admit that, 
 looking through the voluminous correspondence concerning 
 these transactions, there appears no indisposition with any of 
 the authorities of the Federal government, under its several ad- 
 ministrations, to do justice in this respect in as far as their 
 means and powers would allow. 
 
 I trust, sir, I may now be permitted to hope that all feelings 
 of resentment and ill-will resulting from these truly unfortunate 
 events may be buried in oblivion, and that they may be suc- 
 ceeded by those of harmony and friendship, which it is certainly 
 the interest, and, I also believe, the inclination of all to promote. 
 
 I beg, sir, you will be assured of my high and unfeigned con- 
 sideration. ASHBURTON. 
 Hon. Danikl Webster, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashhurton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, August 6, 1842. 
 
 Your lordship's note of the 28th of July, in answer to mine 
 of the 27th, respecting the case of the " Caroline," has been re- 
 ceived and laid before the President. 
 
 The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully ad- 
 mits those great principles of public law, applicable to cases of 
 this kind, which this government has expressed ; and that on 
 your part, as on ours, respect for the inviolable character of 
 the territory of independent states is the most essential foun- 
 dation of civilization. And while it is admitted on both sides 
 that there are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that 
 your lordship admits that such exceptions must come within 
 tire limitations stated and the terms used in a former commu- 
 nication from this department to the British plenipotentiary 
 here. Undoubtedly it is just, that while it is admitted that ex- 
 ceptions growing out of the great law of self-defense do exist, 
 those exceptions should be confined to cases in which the "ne- 
 cessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leav- 
 ing no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 119 
 
 Understanding these principles alike, the difference between 
 the two governments is only whether the facts in the case of 
 the •' Caroline'' make out a case of such necessity for the pur- 
 pose of self-defense. Seeing that the transaction is not recent, 
 having happened in the time of one of his predecessors; seeing 
 that your lordship, in the name of your government, solemnly 
 declares that no slight or disrespect was intended to the sov- 
 ereign authority of the United States ; seeing that it is ac- 
 knowledged that, whether justifiable or not, there was yet a vio- 
 lation of the territory of the United States, and that you are in- 
 structed to say that your government consider that as a most 
 serious occurrence ; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted that 
 an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the 
 time, the President is content to receive these acknowledg- 
 ments and assurances in the conciliatory spirit which marks 
 your lordship's letter, and will make this subject, as a com- 
 plaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further discussion 
 between the two governments. 
 
 As to that part of your lordship's note which relates to other 
 occurrences springing out of the case of the " Caroline," with 
 which occurrences the name of Alexander M'Leod has become 
 connected, I have to say that the government of the United 
 States entirely adheres to the sentiments and opinions express- 
 ed in the communications from this department to Mr. Fox. 
 This government has admitted that for an act committed by 
 the command of his sovereign, jur-e belli, an individual can not 
 be responsible in the ordinary courts of another state. It would 
 regard it as a high indignity if a citizen of its own, acting un- 
 der its authority and by its special command, in such cases were 
 held to answer in a municipal tribunal, and to undergo punish- 
 ment, as if the behest of his government were no defense or 
 protection to him. 
 
 But your lordship is aware that in regular constitutional gov- 
 ernments persons arrested on charges of high crimes can only 
 be discharged by some judicial proceeding. It is so in En- 
 gland; it is so in the colonies and provinces of England. The 
 forms of judicial proceeding differ in different countries, being 
 more rapid in some and more dilatory in others ; and it may 
 be added, generally more dilatory, or, at least, more cautious 
 in cases affecting life in governments of a strictly limited than 
 in those of a more unlimited character. It was a subject of re- 
 gret that the release of M'Leod was so long delayed. A state 
 court, and that not of the highest jurisdiction, decided that, on 
 summary application, embarrassed, as it would appear, by tech- 
 nical difficulties, he could not be released by that court. His 
 discharge shortly afterward by a jury, to whom he preferred 
 to submit his case, rendered unnecessary the further prosecu- 
 
120 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 tion of the legal question. It is for the Congress of the United 
 States, whose attention has been called to the subject, to say 
 what further provision ought to be made to expedite proceed- 
 ings in such cases ; and, in answer to your lordship's question 
 toward the close of your note, I have to say that the govern- 
 ment of the United States holds itself not only fully disposed, 
 but fully competent to carry into practice every principle which 
 it avows or acknowledges, and to fulfill every duty and obliga- 
 tion which it owes to foreign governments, their citizens, or 
 subjects. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my lord, with great consideration, 
 your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lord ASHBURTON, &C., &-C., &c. 
 
 THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD. 
 
 Extract from the Message of the President of the United States, 
 June 1, 1841. 
 
 A correspondence has taken place between the Secretary 
 of State and the minister of her Britannic majesty accredited 
 to this government, on the subject of Alexander M'Leod's in- 
 dictment and imprisonment, copies of which are herewith com- 
 municated to Congress, 
 
 In addition to what appears from these papers, it may be 
 proper to state that Alexander M'Leod has been heard by the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York on his motion to be 
 discharged from imprisonment, and that the decision of that 
 court has not as yet been pronounced. 
 
 Mr. Fox to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, March 12, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned, her Britannic majesty's envoy extraordi- 
 nary and minister plenipotentiary, is instructed by his govern- 
 ment to make the following official communication to the gov- 
 ernment of the United States : 
 
 Her majesty's government have had under their consider- 
 ation the correspondence which took place at Washington in 
 December last between the United States Secretary of State, 
 Mr. Forsyth, and the undersigned, comprising two official let- 
 ters from the undersigned to Mr. Forsyth, dated the 13th and 
 29th of December, and two official letters from Mr. Forsyth to 
 the undersigned, dated the 26th and 30th of the same month, 
 upon the subject of the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Alex- 
 ander M'Leod, of Upper Canada, by the authorities of the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS 121 
 
 State of New York, upon a pretended charge of arson and 
 murder, as having been engaged in the capture and destruction 
 of the steam-boat Carohne on the 29th of December, 1837. 
 
 The undersigned is directed, in the first place, to make known 
 to the government of the United States that her majesty's gov- 
 ernment entirely approve of the course pursued by the under- 
 signed in that correspondence, and of the language adopted by 
 him in the official letters above mentioned. 
 
 And the undersigned is now instructed again to demand from 
 the government of the United States, formally, in the name of 
 the British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alex- 
 ander M'Leod. 
 
 The grounds upon which the British government make this 
 demand upon the government of the United States are these : 
 that the transaction on account of which Mr. M'Leod has been 
 arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was a transaction of a 
 public character, planned and executed by persons duly em- 
 powered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps 
 and to do any acts which might be necessary for the defense 
 of her majesty's territories and for the protection of her majesty's 
 subjects ; and that, consequently, those subjects of her majesty 
 who engaged in that transaction were performing an act of 
 public duty for which they can not be made personally and in- 
 dividually answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreign 
 country. 
 
 The transaction in question may have been, as her majesty's 
 government are of opinion that it was, a justifiable employment 
 of force for the purpose of defending the British territory from 
 the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and American 
 pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and organize them- 
 selves within the territory of the United States, had actually 
 invaded and occupied a portion of the territory of her majesty; 
 or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. Forsyth, in his note to 
 the undersigned of the 26th of December, " a most unjustifiable 
 invasion, in time of peace, of the territory of the United States." 
 But this is a question especially of a political and international 
 kind, which can be discussed and settled only between the two 
 governments, and which the courts of justice of the State of 
 New York can not by possibility have any means of judging 
 or any right of deciding. 
 
 It would be contrary to the universal practice of civilized 
 nations to fix individual responsibility upon persons who, with 
 the sanction or by the orders of the constituted authorities of 
 a state, engaged in military or naval enterprises in their coun- 
 try's cause ; and it is obvious that the introduction of such a 
 principle would aggravate beyond measure the miseries, and 
 would frightfully increase the demoralizing elTects of war, by 
 
122 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAI. PAPERS. 
 
 mixing up with national exasperation the ferocity of personal 
 passions, and the cruelty and bitterness of individual revenge. 
 
 Her majesty's government can not believe that the govern- 
 ment of the United States can really intend to set an example 
 so fraught with evil to the community of nations, and the di- 
 rect tendency of which must be to bring back into the practice 
 of modern war atrocities which civilization and Christianity 
 have long since banished. 
 
 Neither can her majesty's government admit for a moment 
 the validity of the doctrine advanced by Mr. Forsyth, that the 
 Federal government of the United States has no power to in- 
 terfere in the matter in question, and that the decision thereof 
 must rest solely and entirely with the State of New York. 
 
 With the particulars of the internal compact which may ex- 
 ist between the several states that compose the Union, foreign 
 powers have nothing to do; the relations of foreign powers 
 are with the aggregate Union ; that Union is to them repre- 
 sented by the Federal government ; and of that Union the 
 Federal government is to them the only organ. Therefore, 
 when a foreign power has redress to demand for a wrong 
 done to it by any state of the Union, it is to the Federal gov- 
 ei'nment, and not to the separate state, that such power must 
 look for redress for that wrong. And such foreign power can 
 not admit the plea that the separate state is an independent 
 body over which the Federal government has no control. It 
 is obvious that such a doctrine, if admitted, would at once go 
 to a dissolution of the Union as far as its relations with foreign 
 powers are concerned ; and that foreign powers, in such case, 
 instead of acci'editing diplomatic agents to the Federal govern- 
 ment, would send such agents, not to that government, but to 
 the government of each separate state, and would make their 
 relations of peace and war with each state depend upon the 
 result of their separate intercourse with such state, without 
 reference to the relations they might have with the rest. 
 
 Her majesty's government apprehend that the above is not 
 the conclusion at which the government of the United States 
 intend to arrive ; yet such is the conclusion to which the argu- 
 ments that have been advanced by Mr. Forsyth necessarily lead. 
 
 But, be that as it may, her majesty's government formally 
 demand, upon the grounds already stated, the immediate re- 
 lease of Mr. M'Leod ; and her majesty's government entreat the 
 President of the United States to take into his most deliberate 
 consideration the serious nature of the consequences which 
 must ensue from a rejection of this demand. 
 
 The United States government will perceive that, in de- 
 manding Mr. M'Leod's release, her majesty's government ar- 
 gue upon the assumption that he was one of the persons en- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 123 
 
 gaged in the capture of the steam-boat " Caroline ;" but her 
 majesty's government have the strongest reasons for being 
 convinced that Mr. M'Leod was not, in fact, engaged in that 
 transaction; and the undersigned is hereupon instructed to say- 
 that, although the circumstance itself makes no difference in 
 the political and international question at issue, and although 
 her majesty's government do not demand Mr. M'Leod's re- 
 lease upon the ground that he was not concerned in the cap- 
 ture of the "Caroline," but upon the ground that the capture 
 of the " Caroline" was a transaction of a public character, for 
 which the persons engaged in it can not incur private and per- 
 sonal responsibility ; yet the government of the United States 
 must not disguise from themselves that the fact that Mr. M'Leod 
 was not engaged in the transaction must necessarily tend great- 
 ly to inflame that national resentment which any harm that 
 shall be suffered by Mr. M'Leod at the hands of the authorities 
 of the State of New York will infallibly excite throughout the 
 whole of the British empire. 
 
 The undersigned, in addressing the present official com- 
 munication, by order of his government, to Mr. Webster, 
 Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to offer 
 him the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 H. S. Fox. 
 
 The Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, April2A, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned. Secretary of State of the United States, 
 has the honor to inform Mr. Fox, envoy extraordinary and min- 
 ister plenipotentiary of her Britannic majesty, that his note of 
 the 12th of March was received and laid before the President. 
 
 Circumstances well known to Mr. Fox have necessarily de- 
 layed for some days the consideration of that note. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor now to say, that it has been 
 fully considered, and that he has been directed by the Presi- 
 dent to address to Mr. Fox the following reply. 
 
 Mr. Fox informs the government of the United States that 
 he is instructed to make known to it that the government of 
 her majesty entirely approve the course pursued by him in his 
 correspondence with Mr. Forsyth in December last, and the 
 language adopted by him on that occasion ; and that that gov- 
 ernment have instructed him "again to demand from the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, formally, in the name of the 
 British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander 
 M'Leod ;" that " the grounds upon which the British govern- 
 ment make this demand upon the government of the United 
 States are these : that the transaction on account of which Mr. 
 
124 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 M'Leod has been arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was 
 a transaction of a pubhc character, planned and executed by 
 persons duly empowered by her majesty's colonial authorities 
 to take any steps and to do any acts which might be necessary 
 for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the protec- 
 tion of her majesty's subjects ; and that, consequently, those 
 subjects of her majesty who engaged in that transaction were 
 performing an act of public duty, for which they can not be 
 made personally and individually answerable to the laws and 
 tribunals of any foreign country." 
 
 The President is not certain that he understands precisely 
 the meaning intended by her majesty's government to be con- 
 veyed by the foregoing instruction. 
 
 This doubt has occasioned with the President some hesita- 
 tion ; but he inclines to take it for granted that the main pur- 
 pose of the instruction was, to cause it to be signified to the 
 government of the United States that the attack on the steam- 
 boat "Caroline" was an act of public force, done by the Brit- 
 ish colonial authorities, and fully recognized by the queen's 
 government at home; and that, consequently, no individual 
 concerned in that transaction can, according to the just princi- 
 ple of the laws of nations, be held personally answerable in the 
 ordinary courts of law as for a private offense ; and that upon 
 this avowal of her majesty's government, Alexander M'Leod, 
 now imprisoned on an indictment for murder alleged to have 
 been committed in that attack, ought to be released by such 
 proceedings as are usual and are suitable to the case. 
 
 The President adopts the conclusion that nothing more than 
 this could have been intended to be expressed, from the con- 
 sideration that her majesty's government must be fully aware 
 that in the United States, as in England, persons confined un- 
 der judicial process can be released from that confinement only 
 by judicial process. In neither country, as the undersigned 
 supposes, can the arm of the executive power interfere, direct- 
 ly or forcibly, to release or deliver the prisoner. His discharge 
 must be sought in a manner conformable to the principles of 
 law, and the proceedings of courts of judicature. If an indict- 
 ment, like that which has been found against Alexander M'Leod, 
 and under circumstances like those which belong to his case, 
 were pending against an individual in one of the courts of En- 
 gland, there is no doubt that the law-officer of the crown might 
 enter a nolle pi'osequi, or that the prisoner might cause himself 
 to be brought up on habeas corpus, and discharged if his ground 
 of discharge should be adjudged sufficient, or that he might 
 prove the same facts and insist on the same defense or exemp- 
 tion on his trial. 
 
 All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the 
 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 125 
 
 laws and practice of both countries. But the undersigned does 
 not suppose that if such a case were to arise in England, the 
 power of the executive government could be exerted in any 
 more direct manner. Even in the case of embassadors, and 
 other public ministers whose right of exemption from arrest is 
 personal, requiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere fact 
 of diplomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made 
 a highly penal offense, if the arrest be actually made, it can 
 only be discharged by application to the courts of law. 
 
 It is understood that Alexander M'Leod is holden as well on 
 civil as on criminal process, for acts alleged to have been done 
 by him in the attack on the " Caroline ;" and his defense, or 
 ground of acquittal, must be the same in both cases. And this 
 strongly illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety 
 of the foregoing observations ; since it is quite clear that the 
 executive government can not interfere to arrest a civil suit 
 between private parties in any stage of its progress ; but that 
 such suit must go on to its regular judicial termination. If, 
 therefore, any course different from such as have been now 
 mentioned was in contemplation of her majesty's government, 
 something would seem to have been expected from the gov- 
 ernment of the United States as little conformable to the law^ 
 and usages of the English government as to those of the United 
 States, and to which this government can not accede. 
 
 The government of the United States, therefore, acting upon 
 the presumption, which it readily adopted, that nothing extra- 
 ordinary or unusual was expected or requested of it, decided, 
 on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such measures as 
 the occasion and its own duty appeared to require. 
 
 In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. 
 Forsyth, the Secretary of State of the United States, observes, 
 that " if the destruction of the 'Caroline' was a public act of 
 persons in her majesty's service, obeying the order of their su- 
 perior authorities, this fact has not been before communicated 
 to the government of the United States by a person authorized 
 to make the admission ; and it will be for the court which has 
 taken cognizance of the offense with which Mr. M'Leod is 
 charged to decide upon its validity when legally established 
 before it." And adds, " the President deems this to be a prop- 
 er occasion to remind the government of her Britannic majes- 
 ty, that the case of the ' Caroline' has been long since brought 
 to the attention of her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, who up to this day has not communica- 
 ted its decision thereupon. It is hoped that the government of 
 her majesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving 
 the government of the United States uninformed of its views 
 and intentions upon a subject which has naturally produced 
 
126 DirLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 much exasperation, and which has led to such grave conse- 
 quences." 
 
 The communication of the fact that the destruction of the 
 " CaroHne" was an act of public force by the British authori- 
 ties, being formally made to the government of the United 
 States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a decided aspect. 
 
 The government of the United States entei'tains no doubt 
 that, after this avowal of the transaction as a public transac- 
 tion, authorized and undertaken by the British authorities, in- 
 dividuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of public 
 law and the general usage of civilized states, to be holden per- 
 sonally responsible in the ordinary tribunals of law for their 
 participation in it. And the President presumes that it can 
 hardly be necessary to say that the American people, not dis- 
 trustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public 
 means, can not desire the punishment of individuals when the 
 act complained of is declared to have been an act of the gov- 
 ernment itself. 
 
 Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was 
 given to the Attorney-general of the United States from this 
 department, by direction of the President, which fully sets forth 
 the opinions of this government on the subject of M'Leod's im- 
 prisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has 
 the honor herewith to inclose. 
 
 The indictment against M'Leod is pending in a state court, 
 but his rights, whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to 
 be presumed, than if he were holden to answer in one of the 
 courts of this government. 
 
 He demands immunity from personal responsibility by vir- 
 tue of the law of nations, and that law in civilized states is to 
 be respected in all courts. None is either so high or so low as 
 to escape from its authority in cases to which its rules and prin- 
 ciples apply. 
 
 This department has been regularly informed by his Excel- 
 lency the Governor of the State of New York, that the chief 
 justice of that state was assigned to preside at the hearing and 
 trial of M'Leod's case, but that, owing to some error or mis- 
 take in the process of summoning the jury, the hearing was 
 necessarily deferred. The President regrets this occurrence, 
 as he has a desire for a speedy disposition of the subject. The 
 council for M'Leod have requested authentic evidence of the 
 avowal by the British government of the attack on and de- 
 struction of the "Caroline," as acts done under its authority, 
 and such evidence will be furnished to them by this department. 
 It is understood that the indictment has been removed into 
 the Supreme Court of the State by the proper proceeding for 
 that purpose, and that it is now competent for M'Leod, by the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 127 
 
 ordinary process of habeas corpus, to bring his case forbearing 
 before that tribunal. 
 
 The undersigned hardly needs to assure Mr. Fox, that a tri- 
 bunal so eminently distinguished for ability and learning as the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York, may be safely re- 
 lied upon for the just and impartial administration of the law in 
 this as well as in other cases ; and the undersigned repeats the 
 expression of the desire of this government that no delay may 
 be suffered to take place in these proceedings which can be 
 avoided. Of this desire, Mr. Fox will see evidence in the in- 
 structions above referred to. 
 
 The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the gov- 
 ernment of the United States has not changed the opinion 
 which it has heretofore expressed to her majesty's government 
 of the character of the act of destroying the "Caroline." 
 
 It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any 
 reasonable application or construction of the right of self-de- 
 fense under the laws of nations. It is admitted that a just right 
 of self-defense attaches always to nations as well as to individ- 
 uals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. But 
 the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the cir- 
 cumstances of each particular case ; and when its alleged ex- 
 ercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the ter- 
 ritory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and abso- 
 lute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not having 
 up to this time been made acquainted with the views and rea- 
 sons at length which have led her majesty's government to 
 think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable as an act of 
 self-defense, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remon- 
 strance of this government against the transaction, abstains for 
 the present from any extended discussion of the question. But 
 it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some no- 
 tice of the general grounds of justification stated by her majes- 
 ty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Her majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, 
 that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated 
 in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employ- 
 ment of force for the purpose of defending the British territora 
 from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
 American pirates, who, having been " permitted" to arm and 
 organize themselves within the territory of the United States, 
 had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 
 
 The President can not suppose that her majesty's govern- 
 ment, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as in- 
 timating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States 
 and disturbing the peace of the British territories, were done 
 under any degree of countenance from this government, or 
 
128 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by the 
 ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets that, by 
 using the term " permitted," a possible inference of that kind 
 might be raised; yet such an inference, the President is willing 
 to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British 
 government. 
 
 That on a line of frontier such as separates the United States 
 from her Britannic majesty's North American provinces — a 
 line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halves — 
 irregularities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, 
 equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily 
 to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in re- 
 gard to the United States, without any reproach to their gov- 
 ernment, since their institutions entirely discourage the keep- 
 ing up of large standing armies in time of peace, and their situ- 
 ation happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining 
 such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can 
 be expected from either government, in these cases, is good 
 faith, a sincere desire to preserve peace and do justice, the use 
 of all proper means of prevention, and that, if offenses can not, 
 nevertheless, be always pi-evented, the offenders shall still be 
 justly punished. In all these respects, this government ac- 
 knowledges no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 
 
 Her majesty's government are pleased, also, to speak of those 
 American citizens who took part with persons in Canada, en- 
 gaged in an insurrection against the British government, as 
 "American pirates." The undersigned does not admit the 
 propriety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the 
 United States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a mili- 
 tary expedition from the United States, intended to act against 
 the British government in Canada, they were clearly violating 
 the laws of their own country, and exposing themselves to the 
 just consequences which might be inflicted on them if taken 
 within the I3ritish dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they 
 were certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that 
 it can advance the purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or 
 hasten the accommodation of national difficulties, so to de- 
 nominate them. Their offense, whatever it was, had no anal- 
 ogy to cases of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against 
 ihem to be true, they were taking a part in what they regarded 
 as a civil war, and they were taking a part on the side of the 
 rebels. Surely England herself has not regarded persons thus 
 engaged as deserving the appellation which her majesty's gov- 
 ernment bestows on these citizens of the United States. 
 
 It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last 
 two centuries, subjects of the British crown have been permit- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 129 
 
 ted to engage in foreign wars, both national and civil, and in 
 the latter in every stage of their progress ; and yet it has not 
 been imagined that England has at any time allowed her sub- 
 jects to turn pirates. Indeed, in our own times, not only have 
 individual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in 
 civil wars, but we have seen whole regiments openly recruit- 
 ed, embodied, armed, and disciplined in England, with the 
 avowed purpose of aiding a rebellion against a nation with 
 which England was at peace ; although it is true that, sub- 
 sequently, an act of Parliament was passed to prevent transac- 
 tions so nearly approaching to public war, without license from 
 the crown. 
 
 It may be said that there i? a difference between the case of 
 a civil war arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted 
 revolt of a colony against the mother country, and the case of 
 a fresh outbreak, or commencement of a rebellion. The un- 
 dersigned does not deny that such distinction may, for certain 
 purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a govern- 
 ment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and 
 duties, when civil wars break out in other countries, may de- 
 cide on all the circumstances of the particular case upon its 
 own existing stipulations, on probable results, on what its own 
 security requires, and on many other considerations. It may 
 be already bound to assist one party, or it may become bound, 
 if it so chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the conse- 
 quences of such assistance. 
 
 But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they 
 who join those concerned in it, whatever may be their of- 
 fense against their own country, or however they may be 
 treated, if taken with arms in their hands in the territory of the 
 government against which the standard of revolt is raised, can 
 not be denominated pirates without departing from all ordinary 
 use of language in the definition of offenses. A cause which 
 has so foul an origin as piracy can not, in its progress or by 
 its success, obtain a claim to any degree of respectability or 
 tolerance among nations ; and civil wars, therefore, are not 
 understood to have such a commencement. 
 
 It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest 
 eminence in England, living and dead, have maintained that 
 the general law of nations does not forbid the citizens or sub- 
 jects of one government from taking part in the civil commo- 
 tions of another. There is some reason, indeed, to think that 
 such may be the opinion of her majesty's government at the 
 present moment. 
 
 The undersigned has made these remarks from the convic- 
 tion that it is important to regard established distinctions, and 
 to view the acts and offenses of individuals in the exactly 
 
 I 
 
130 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 proper light. But it is not to be inferred that there is, on the 
 part of this government, any purpose of extenuating in the 
 sHghtest degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the 
 United States, who have joined in military expeditions against 
 the British government in Canada. On the contrary, the Pres- 
 ident directs the undersigned to say that it is his fixed resolu- 
 tion that all such disturbers of the national peace, and violators 
 of the laws of their country, shall be brought to exemplary 
 punishment. Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led 
 on to these excesses by British subjects, refugees from the 
 provinces, be deemed any excuse or palliation ; although it is 
 well worthy of being remembered that the prime movers of 
 these disturbances on the borders are subjects of the queen, 
 who come within the territories of the United States, seeking 
 to enlist the sympathies of their citizens by all the motives 
 which they are able to address to them on account of griev- 
 ances, real or imaginary. There is no reason to believe that 
 the design of any hostile movement from the United States 
 against Canada has commenced with citizens of the United 
 States. The true origin of such purposes and such enterprises 
 is on the other side of the line. But the President's resolution 
 to prevent these transgressions of the law is not, on that ac- 
 count, the less strong. It is taken, not only in conformity to 
 his duty under the provisions of existing laws, but in full con- 
 sonance with the established principles and practice of this 
 government. 
 
 The government of the United States has not, from the first, 
 fallen into the doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent 
 of the duties of neutrality. It has held that, however it may 
 have been in less enlightened ages, the just interpretation of the 
 modern law of nations is, that neutral states are bound to be 
 strictly neutral ; and that it is a manifest and gross impropriety 
 for individuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other states, 
 and thus to be at war while their government is at peace. 
 War and peace are high national relations, which can proper- 
 ly be established or changed only by nations themselves. 
 
 The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doc- 
 trine of non-intervention by one nation with the aflTairs of oth- 
 ers is liable to be essentially impaired if, while government re- 
 frains from interference, interference is still allowed to its sub- 
 jects, individually or in masses. It may happen, indeed, that 
 persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other re- 
 gions, and settle themselves on uncultivated lands, in territo- 
 ries belonging to other states. This can not be prevented by 
 governments which allow the emigration of their subjects and 
 citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandoned their 
 own country, have no longer claim to its protection, nor is it 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 131 
 
 longer responsible for their acts. Such cases, therefore, if they 
 occur, show no abandonment of the duty of neutraHty. 
 
 The government of the United States has not considered it 
 as sufficient to confine the duties of neutrality and non-inter- 
 ference to the case of governments whose territories lie adja- 
 cent to each other. The application of the principle may be 
 more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they re- 
 gard as being the same, if those territories be divided by half 
 the globe. The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger 
 of allowing individuals to make war on their own authority, or, 
 by mingling themselves in the belligerent operations of other 
 nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the policy, or em- 
 broiling the relations, of their own government. And the 
 United States have been the first among civilized states to en- 
 force the observance of this just rule of neutrality and peace, 
 by special and adequate legal enactments. In the infancy of 
 this government, on the breaking out of the European wars 
 which had their origin in the French Revolution, Congress 
 passed laws, with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens 
 of the United States from taking part in those hostilities. 
 
 By these laws, it prescribed to the citizens of the United 
 States what it understood to be their duty, as neutrals, by the 
 law of nations, and the duty, also, which they owed to the in- 
 terest and honor of their own country. 
 
 At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a 
 European power took up arms against their sovereign. Con- 
 gress, not diverted from the established system of the govern- 
 ment by any temporary considerations, not swerved from its 
 sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which it might 
 naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to 
 pass acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and 
 civil war. And these provisions of law have been continued, 
 revised, amended, and are in full force at the present moment. 
 Nor have they been a dead letter, as it is well known that ex- 
 emplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
 transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties 
 have fallen on individuals (citizens of the United States) engaged 
 in this very disturbance in Canada with which the destruction 
 of the Caroline was connected. And it is in Mr. Fox's knowl- 
 edge, also, that the act of Congress of the 10th of March, 1838, 
 was passed for the precise purpose of more eflfectually restrain- 
 ing military enterprises from the United States into the British 
 provinces, by authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive 
 preventive means. The undersigned may add, that it stands 
 on the admission of very high British authority, that during the 
 recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of adventurers ap- 
 peared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 
 
132 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPER3. 
 
 Canada to keep themselves in a state prepared for self-defense, 
 yet that these adventurers were acting by no means in accord- 
 ance with the feeling of the great mass of the American peo- 
 ple, or of the government of the United States. 
 
 This government, therefore, not only holds itself above re- 
 proach in every thing respecting the preservation of neutrality, 
 the observance of the principle of non-intervention, and the 
 strictest conformity, in these respects, to the rules of interna- 
 tional law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice 
 to acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be fol- 
 lowed by others ; and that by its steady legislation on this most 
 important subject it has done something to promote peace and 
 good neighborhood among nations, and to advance the civiliza- 
 tion of mankind. 
 
 The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic majesty's 
 government shall present the grounds, at length, on which they 
 justify the local authorities of Canada in attacking and destroy- 
 ing the " Caroline," they will consider that the laws of the 
 United States are such as the undersigned has now represent- 
 ed them, and that the government of the United States has al- 
 ways manifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effect- 
 ually and impartially administered. If there have been cases 
 in which individuals, justly obnoxious to punishment, have es- 
 caped, this is no more than happens in regard to other laws. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and under those immediately 
 connected with the transaction itself, it will be for her majes- 
 ty's government to show upon what state of facts and what 
 rules of national law the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be 
 defended. It will be for that government to show a necessity 
 of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of 
 means, and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to 
 show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing 
 the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the ter- 
 ritories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or 
 excessive ; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-de- 
 fense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly with- 
 in it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to 
 the persons on board the " Caroline" was impracticable, or 
 ■would have been unavailing. It must be shown that daylight 
 could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
 crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would 
 not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that 
 there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her 
 in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and 
 while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and 
 wounding others, and then drawing her into the current above 
 the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 133 
 
 there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the 
 Hving with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills the 
 imagination with horror. A necessity for all this the govern- 
 ment of the United States can not believe to have existed. 
 
 All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they 
 must lead to bloody and exasperated war. And when an in- 
 dividual comes into the United States from Canada, and to the 
 very place on which this drama was performed, and there 
 chooses to make public and vain-glorious boast of the part he 
 acted in it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should 
 be created, and some degree of commotion arise. 
 
 This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the 
 world. Its object is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no ag- 
 grandizement by foreign conquest, because it knows that no 
 foreign acquisitions could augment its power and importance 
 so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural 
 growth, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. 
 But it can not admit that its government has not both the will 
 and the power to preserve its own neutrality, and to enforce 
 the observance of its own laws upon its own citizens. It is 
 jealous of its rights, and among others, and most especially, of 
 the right of the absolute immunity of its territory against ag- 
 gression from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and de- 
 termination of this government fully and at all times to main- 
 tain, while it will at the same time as scrupulously refrain from 
 infringing on the rights of others. 
 
 The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclu- 
 sion, that he confidently trusts that this and all other questions 
 of difference between the two governments will be treated by 
 both in the full exercise of such a spirit of candor, justice, and 
 mutual respect as shall give assurance of the long continuance 
 of peace between the two countries. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure 
 Mr. Fox of his high consideration. Daniel Webster. 
 
 Henry S. Fox, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. 
 
 [inclosure.] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, March 15, 1841. 
 
 Sir, — Alexander M'Leod, a Canadian subject of her Britan- 
 nic majesty, is now imprisoned at Lockport, in the State of 
 New York, under an indictment for murder alleged to have 
 been committed by him in the attack on, and the destruction 
 of, the steam-boat Caroline, at Schlosser, in that state, on the 
 night of the 29th of December, 1837 ; and his trial is expected 
 to take place at Lockport on the 22d instant. 
 
 You are apprised of the correspondence which took place 
 between Mr. Forsyth, late Secretary of State, and Mr. Fox, her 
 
134 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Britannic majesty's minister here, on this subject, in December 
 last. 
 
 In his note to Mr. Fox, of the 26th of that month, Mr. For- 
 syth says : " If the destruction of the Carohne was a pubh'c act 
 of persons in her majesty's service obeying the order of their 
 superior authorities, this fact has not been before communi- 
 cated to the government of the United States by a person au- 
 thorized to rrnke the admission ; and it will be for the court 
 which has tJ cen cognizance of the offense with which Mr. 
 M'Leod is charged to decide upon its vahdity when legally 
 established before it. 
 
 " The President deems this to be a proper occasion to re- 
 mind the government of her Britannic majesty that the case of 
 the Caroline has been long since brought to the attention of her 
 majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, 
 up to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. 
 It is hoped that the government of her majesty will perceive 
 the importance of no longer leaving the government of the 
 United States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a 
 subject which has naturally produced much exasperation, and 
 which has led to such grave consequences." 
 
 I have now to inform you that Mr. Fox has addressed a note 
 to this department, under date of the 12th instant, in which, 
 by the immediate instruction and direction of his government, 
 he demands, formally and officially, M'Leod's immediate re- 
 lease, on the ground that this transaction, on account of which 
 he has been arrested and is to be put upon his trial, was of a 
 public character, planned and executed by persons duly em- 
 powered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps, 
 and to do any acts, which might be necessary for the defense 
 of her majesty's territories, and for the protection of ' sr majes- 
 ty's subjects ; and that, consequently, those subjects of her maj- 
 esty who engaged in that transaction were performing an act 
 of public duty, for which they can not be made, personally and 
 individually, answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreign 
 country ; and that her majesty's government has further directed 
 Mr. Fox to make known to the government of the United States 
 that her majesty's government entirely approved of the course 
 pursued by Mr. Fox, and the language adopted by him in the 
 correspondence above mentioned. 
 
 There is, therefore, now an authentic declaration on the part 
 of the British government that the attack on the Caroline was 
 an act of public force, done by military men under the orders 
 of their superiors, and is recognized as such by the queen's 
 government. The importance of this declaration is not to be 
 doubted, and the President is of opinion that it calls upon him 
 for the performance of a high duty. That an individual, form- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 135 
 
 ing part of a public force, and acting under the authority of his 
 government, is not to be held answerable, as a private tres- 
 passer or malefactor, is a principle of public law sanctioned by 
 the usages of all civilized nations, and which the government 
 of the United States has no inclination to dispute. This has no 
 connection whatever with the question, whether, in this case, 
 the attack on the Caroline was, as the British government think 
 it, a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defend- 
 ing the British territory from unprovoked attack or whether it 
 was a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of per ce, of the ter- 
 ritory of the United States, as this government has regarded 
 it. The two questions are essentially distinct and different ; 
 and, while acknowledging that an individual may claim immu- 
 nity from the consequences of acts done by him, by showing 
 that he acted under national authority, this government is not 
 to be understood as changing the opinions which it has here- 
 tofore expressed in regard to the real nature of the transaction 
 which resulted in the destruction of the Caroline. That sub- 
 ject it is not necessary for any purpose connected with this com- 
 munication now to discuss. The views of this government in 
 relation to it are known to that of England ; and we are ex- 
 pecting the answ^er of that government to the communication 
 which has been made to it. 
 
 All that is intended to be said at present is, that since the at- 
 tack on the Caroline is avowed as a national act, which may 
 justify reprisals, or even general war, if the government of the 
 United States, in the judgment which it shall form of the trans- 
 action and of its own duty, should see fit so to decide, yet that 
 it raises a question entirely public and political ; a question be- 
 tween independent nations, and that individuals concerned in it 
 can not be arrested and tried before the ordiiiary tribunals, as 
 for the v- lation of municipal law. If the attack on the Caro- 
 line w^as unjustifiable, as this government has asserted, the law 
 which has been violated is the law of nations ; and the redress 
 which is to be sought is the redress authorized, in such cases, 
 by the provisions of that code. 
 
 You are well aware that the President has no power to ar- 
 rest the proceeding in the civil and criminal courts of the State 
 of New York. If this indictment were pending in one of the 
 courts of the United States, I am directed to say that the Presi- 
 dent, upon the receipt of Mr. Fox's last communication, would 
 have immediately directed a nolle prosequi to be entered. 
 
 Whether, in this case, the Governor of New York have that 
 power, or, if he have, whether he would feel it his duty to ex- 
 ercise it, are points upon which we are not informed. 
 
 It is understood that iVPLeod is holden also on civil process, 
 sued out against him by the owner of the Caroline. We sup- 
 
136 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 pose it very clear that the executive of the state can not inter- 
 fere with such process ; and, indeed, if such process were pend- 
 ing in the courts of the United States, the President could not 
 arrest it. In such, and many analogous cases, the party prose- 
 cuted or sued must avail himself of his exemption or defense by 
 judicial procedings, either in the court into which he is called, 
 or in some other court. But whether the process be criminal 
 or civil, the fact of having acted under public authority, and in 
 obedience to the orders of lawful superiors, must be regarded 
 as a valid defense ; otherwise individuals would be holden re- 
 sponsible for injuries resulting from the acts of government, and 
 even from the operations of public war. 
 
 You will be furnished with a copy of this instruction for the 
 use of the Executive of New York and the attorney-general of 
 that state. You will carry with you, also, authentic evidence 
 of the recognition by the British government of the destruction 
 of the Caroline as an act of public force, done by national au- 
 thority. 
 
 The President is impressed with the propriety of transferring 
 the trial from the scene of the principal excitement to some 
 other and distant county. You will take care that this be sug- 
 gested to the prisoner's counsel. The President is gratified to 
 learn that the Governor of New York has already directed that 
 the trial take place before the chief-justice of the state. 
 
 Having consulted with the governor, you will proceed to 
 Lockport, or wherever else the trial may be holden, and furnish 
 tile prisoner's counsel with the evidence of which you will be 
 in possession material to his defense. You will see that he have 
 skillful and eminent counsel, if such be not already retained ; 
 and, although you are not desired to act as counsel yourself, 
 you will cause it to be signified to him, and to the gentleman 
 who may conduct his defense, that it is the wish of this govern- 
 ment that, in case his defense be overruled by the court in 
 which he shall be tried, proper steps be taken immediately for 
 removing the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of 
 the United States. 
 
 The President hopes that you will use such dispatch as to 
 make your arrival at the place of trial sure before the trial 
 comes on ; and he trusts you will keep him informed of what- 
 ever occurs by means of a correspondence through this depart- 
 ment. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Mr. Attorney-general, your obedient 
 servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Hon. John J. Crittenden, Attorney-general of the United States. 
 
 It is known that M'Leod was brought before the Supreme 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 137 
 
 Court of the State of New York by writs of habeas corpus, and 
 his discharge from imprisonment insisted on, upon the ground 
 that, if he had had any concern in the destruction of the Caro- 
 hne, he had acted therein as a soldier, under the order of his 
 superiors, in a mihtary expedition planned and authorized by 
 the British colonial government of Canada, and afterward avow- 
 ed and sanctioned by the queen's government in England. 
 
 The court on that occasion, however, took a different view of 
 the law from that which had been expressed by Mr. Webster 
 in his letters to Mr. Fox and Mr. Crittenden. The case is re- 
 ported in Wendell's Reports, vol. xxv., page 483. 
 
 This decision does not appear to have given satisfaction ei- 
 ther to the profession or to the public men of the country. It 
 was ably reviewed in a pamphlet by the late D. B. Talmadge, 
 formerly one of the judges of the Superior Court of the city of 
 New York. That review will also be found in Wendell's Re- 
 ports, vol. xxvi., in the Appendix. 
 
 Chancellor Kent, Chief-justice Spencer, and other eminent 
 jurists have expressed their approbation of Mr. Talmadge's 
 " Review," and their entire concurrence in his judgment upon 
 the legal question. 
 
 It was justly apprehended, that if the tribunals of individual 
 states possessed the power of acting on questions of this kind, 
 without revision or control, dangerous consequences might 
 arise to the peace of the country. How could the government 
 of the United States be responsible for the fulfillment of its ob- 
 ligations to other governments, their citizens and subjects, if, 
 in cases of so much importance and delicacy as M'Leod's, a 
 state court might take final judgment into its own hands? An 
 ultimate reference in some way to the judicial authorities of 
 the United States, of questions connected with the foreign re- 
 lations of the country, and which may involve its peace, would 
 seem to be quite essential. Under the influence of such a con- 
 viction, and with this decision of the Supreme Court of New 
 York before it. Congress, on the 29th of August, 1842, passed 
 the following act : 
 
 ^^An Act to provide further remedial Justice in the Courts of the 
 United States. 
 
 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
 the United Slates of America in Congress assembled, That either 
 of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, or a 
 judge of any District Court of the United States, in which a 
 prisoner is confined, in addition to the authority already con- 
 ferred by law, shall have power to grant writs of habeas 
 corpus in all cases of any prisoner or prisoners in jail or con- 
 finement, where he, she, or they, being subjects or citizens of a 
 
138 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 foreign state, and domiciled therein, shall be committed or con- 
 fined, or in custody, under or by any authority or law, or pro- 
 cess founded thereon, of the United States, or of any one of 
 them, for or on account of any act done or omitted under any 
 alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemp- 
 tion, set up or claimed under the commission, or order, or sanc- 
 tion of any foreign state or sovereignty, the validity or effect 
 whereof depend upon the law of nations, or under color there- 
 of And upon the return of the said writ, and due proof of the 
 service of notice of the said proceeding to the attorney general, 
 or other officer prosecuting the pleas of the state, under whose 
 authority the petitioner has been arrested, committed, or is held 
 in custody, to be prescribed by the said justice or judge at the 
 time of granting said writ, the said justice or judge shall pro- 
 ceed to hear the said cause ; and if, upon hearing the same, it 
 shall appear that the prisoner or prisoners is or are entitled to 
 be discharged from such confinement, commitment, custody, 
 or arrest, for or by reason of such alleged right, title, authority, 
 privileges, protection, or exemption, so set up and claimed, and 
 the law of nations applicable thereto, and that the same exists 
 in fact, and has been duly proved to the said justice or judge, 
 then it shall be the duty of the said justice or judge forthwith 
 to discharge such prisoner or prisoners accordingly. And if it 
 shall appear to the said justice or judge that such judgment of 
 discharge ought not to be rendered, then the said prisoner 
 or prisoners shall be forthwith remanded : Provided always. 
 That from any decision of such justice or judge an appeal may 
 be taken to the Circuit Court of the United States for the dis- 
 trict in which the said cause is heard ; and from the judgment 
 of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, on such terms and under such regulations and orders as 
 well for the custody and appearance of the prisoner or prisoners 
 as for sending up to the appellate tribunal a transcript of the 
 petition, writ of habeas corpus returned thereto, and other pro- 
 ceedings, as the judge hearing the said cause may prescribe ; 
 and pending such proceedings or appeal, and until final judg- 
 ment be rendered therein, and after final judgment of discharge 
 in the same, any proceeding against said prisoner or prisoners, 
 in any state court, or by or under the authority of any state, 
 for any matter or thing so heard and determined, or in process 
 of being heard and determined, under and by virtue of such 
 writ of habeas corpus, shall be deemed null and void." 
 
 The authorities of public law would appear to be under no 
 doubt of M'Leod's right to be exempted from personal respons- 
 ibility for any act he might have committed as a member of a 
 military force acting under the authority of its government. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 139 
 
 The following citations may be sufficient to establish this, 
 and to maintain the principles stated in Mr. Webster's letter to 
 the attorney general. 
 
 "On all occasions susceptible of doubt, the whole nation, the 
 individuals, and especially the military, are to submit their judg- 
 ment to those who hold the reins of government — to the sov- 
 ereign. This they are bound to do, by the essential principles 
 of political society and of government. What would be the 
 consequence if, at every step of the sovereign, the subjects were 
 at liberty to weigh the justice of his reasons, and refuse to march 
 to a war which might to them appear unjust? It often hap- 
 pens that prudence will not permit a sovereign to disclose all 
 his reasons. It is the duty of subjects to suppose them just 
 and wise, until clear and absolute evidence tells them the con- 
 trary. When, therefore, under the impression of such an idea, 
 they have lent their assistance in a war which is afterward 
 found to be unjust, the sovereign alone is guilty ; he alone is 
 bound to repair the injuries. The subjects, and in particular 
 the military, are innocent ; they have acted only from a nec- 
 essary obedience." — Vattel, b. iii., ch. ii., § 187. 
 
 " Indeed, in solemn war, the individual members of a nation 
 which has declared war are not punishable by the adverse 
 nation for what they do, because the guilt of their actions is 
 chargeable upon the nation which directs and authorizes them 
 to act. But even this effect may be produced, though not in 
 the respect of all the members of the nation, yet in respect of 
 some of them, without a declaration of war. For, in the less 
 solemn kinds of war, what the members do, who act under the 
 particular direction and authority of their nation, is by the law 
 of nations no personal crime in them ; they can not, therefore, 
 be punished, consistently with this law, for any act in which it 
 considers them only as the instruments, and the nation as the 
 agent." — Rutherford, b. ii., ch. ix., § 18. 
 
 " A mere presumption of the will of the sovereign would not 
 be sufficient to excuse a governor or any other officer who 
 should undertake a war, except in case of necessity, without 
 either a general or particular order. For it is not sufficient to 
 know what part the sovereign would probably act if he were 
 consulted in such a particular posture of affairs ; but it should 
 rather be considered, in general, what it is probable a prince 
 would desire should be done, without consulting him, when the 
 matter will bear no delay and the affair is dubious. Now, cer- 
 tainly, sovereigns will never consent that their ministers should, 
 whenever they think proper, undertake without their order a 
 thing of such importance as an offensive war, which is the prop- 
 er subject of the present inquiry. 
 
 " In these circumstances, whatever part the sovereign would 
 
140 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 have thought proper to act if he had been consulted, and what- 
 ever success the war undertaken without his order may have 
 had, it is left to the sovereign whether he will ratify or con- 
 demn the act of his ministers. If he ratify it, this approbation 
 renders the war solemn, by reflecting back, as it were, an au- 
 thority upon it ; so that it obliges the whole commonwealth." 
 — Bu7'limaqui, Part iv., ch. iii., § 18 and 19. 
 
 RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, December 2^, 1841. 
 
 While at Paris, I received a letter from Lord Aberdeen of 
 the 2d December, with sundry accompanying documents, rela- 
 tive to an extraordinary outrage on the person of Captain En- 
 dicott, of the American bark Lintin, in Macao Roads. On my 
 return to London, I acknowledged the receipt of this commu- 
 nication, and herewith transmit you a copy of Lord Aberdeen's 
 note and my reply, and of all the documents in the case. I 
 should have been pleased to confine my answer to a simple ex- 
 pression of satisfaction at the promptness of the action of her 
 majesty's government ; but I deemed it but just to Captain En- 
 dicott to make an observation in answer to that part of Lord 
 Aberdeen's note in which the burden of the provocation was 
 assumed to be on Captain Endicott's side. 
 
 I received on the 23d instant a note from Lord Aberdeen on 
 the African seizures, in reply to one addressed to him by Mr. 
 Stevenson in the last hours of his residence in London, and 
 which, as it appears, did not reach Lord Aberdeen's hands till 
 Mr. Stevenson had left London. As some time must elapse 
 before I could give a detailed answer to this communication, I 
 thought it best at once to acknowledge its receipt, to express 
 my satisfaction at its dispassionate tone, and to announce the 
 purpose of replying to it at some future period. The Presi- 
 dent, I think, will be struck with the marked change in the tone 
 of the present ministry, as manifested in this note and a former 
 one addressed by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, contrasted 
 with the last communication from Lord Palmerston on the same 
 subject. The difference is particularly apparent in Lord Aber- 
 deen's letter to me of the 20th inst. Not only is the claim of 
 Great Britain, relative to the right of detaining suspicious ves- 
 sels, stated in a far less exceptionable manner than it had been 
 done by Lord Palmerston, but Lord Aberdeen expressly de- 
 clines being responsible for the language of his predecessor. 
 
 You will observe that Lord Aberdeen disclaims, in a more 
 distinct manner than it has ever been done, all right to search, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 141 
 
 detain, or in any manner interfere with American vessels, 
 whether engaged in the slave trade or not ; that he hmits the 
 pretensions of this government to boarding vessels strongly 
 suspected of being those of other nations unwarrantably as- 
 suming the American flag ; and promises, when this right has 
 been abused to the injury of American vessels, that full and 
 ample reparation shall be made. As the United States have 
 never claimed that their flag should furnish protection to any 
 vessels but their own, and as very strict injunctions have been 
 forwarded to the cruisers on the coast of Africa not to inter- 
 fere with American vessels, I am inclined to think that cases 
 of interruption will become much less frequent. And if this 
 government should redeem in good faith Lord Aberdeen's prom- 
 ise of reparation where injury has been done, I am disposed 
 to hope that this subject of irritation will in a great measure 
 cease to exist. I shall not engage in the discussion of the gen- 
 eral principles as now avowed and explained by this govern- 
 ment till I hear from you on the subject, and know what the 
 President's views are ; but I shall confine myself chiefly to 
 urging the claim for redress in the cases of the Tigris, Seamew, 
 Jones, and William and Francis, which were the last submitted 
 by my predecessor, and on which no answer has been received 
 from this government. 
 
 Among the reasons for supposing that fewer causes of com- 
 plaint will hereafter arise, is the circumstance that the seizures 
 of last year took place under the agreement of Commodore 
 Tucker, the British commander on the African station, and the 
 officer in command of the American cruiser. I find nothing 
 on the files of the legation showing what order, if any, has been 
 taken by our government on the subject of this arrangement. 
 It is taken for granted by this government that this agreement 
 is disavowed by that of the United States ; and since February 
 last positive orders have been given to the British cruisers in 
 the African seas not to interfere with American ships, even 
 though known to be engaged in the slave trade. I shall await 
 with much anxiety the instructions of the President on this im- 
 portant subject. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Foreign Office, December 2, 1841. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to inform you that the Lords Com- 
 missioners of the Admiralty have communicated to me a dis- 
 patch and its inclosures, which their lordships have recently 
 received from Commodore Sir J. Gordon Bremer, dated Hong 
 Kong, the 9th of August last, relative to the improper conduct 
 of Mr. Bean, master and commanding officer of her majesty's 
 ship " Herald," toward the master of the American barque 
 
142 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 " Lintin," while at anchor in the Taypa Roads, near Macao. 
 It appears from these papers (copies of which I have the honor 
 to inclose, for the information of your government), that some 
 altercation having taken place respecting the mooring of their 
 respective vessels, the master of the ^^ Herald" in the afternoon 
 of the 24th of July, manned and armed a boat, and sent the 
 mate of the " Herald" alongside the " Lintin" with orders to 
 require the master of that vessel to go on board the " Herald;" 
 and that, upon his refusing to go, he was forcibly conveyed 
 thither, and there detained for some hours. 
 
 Although it would appear, from the details given in the in- 
 closed papers, that the master of the " Lintin" brought this in- 
 dignity upon himself by his own irritating and contemptuous 
 conduct toward the commander of the ''Herald" yet her 
 majesty's government consider such provocation as no justifi- 
 cation for the proceeding adopted by Mr. Bean, and the Lords 
 Commissioners of the Admiralty have accordingly signified to 
 that officer their high displeasure at his indefensible conduct 
 upon this occasion, and have ordered him to be dismissed from 
 her majesty's service and sent home. I have, &c., 
 
 Aberdeen. 
 Edward Everett, Esq. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett. — [inclosure.] 
 
 Foreign Office, December 20, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, has the honor of addressing to Mr. Ev- 
 erett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the 
 United States, the observations which he feels called upon to 
 make in answer to the note of Mr. Stevenson, dated on the 21st 
 of October. 
 
 As that communication only reached the hands of the un- 
 dersigned on the day after the departure of Mr. Stevenson from 
 London, on his return to America, and as there has since been 
 no minister or charge d'affaires from the United States resi- 
 dent in this country, the undersigned has looked with some 
 anxiety for the arrival of Mr. Everett, in order that he might 
 be enabled to renew his diplomatic intercourse with an accred- 
 ited representative of the republic. Had the undersigned en- 
 tertained no other purpose than to controvert the arguments of 
 Mr. Stevenson, or to fortify his own, in treating of the mat- 
 ter which has formed the subject of their correspondence, he 
 would have experienced little impatience ; but as it is his de- 
 sire to clear up doubt, and to remove misapprehension, he feels 
 that he can not too early avail himself of the presence of Mr. 
 Everett at his post, to bring to his knowledge the true state of 
 the question at issue. 
 
DlPLOx^IATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 143 
 
 The undersigned agrees with Mr. Stevenson in the import- 
 ance of arriving at a clear understanding of the matter really 
 in dispute. This ought to be the first object in the differences 
 of states, as well as of individuals ; and, happily, it is often the 
 first step to the reconciliation of the parties. In the present 
 case this understanding is doubly essential, because a continu- 
 ance of mistake and error may be productive of the most se- 
 rious consequences. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson persists in contending that the British gov- 
 ernment assert a right which is equivalent to the claim of 
 searching American vessels in time of peace. In proof of this, 
 Mr. Stevenson refers to a passage in a former note of Vis- 
 count Palmerston, addressed to himself, against which he 
 strongly protests, and the doctrine contained in which he says 
 that the undersigned is understood to affirm. 
 
 Now, it is not the intention of the undersigned to inquire into 
 the precise import and force of the expressions of Viscount Pal- 
 merston. These might have been easily explained to Mr. Ste- 
 venson by their author at the time they were written ; but the 
 undersigned must request that his doctrines upon this subject, 
 and those of the government of which he is the organ, may be 
 judged of exclusively from his own declarations. 
 
 The undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in 
 the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the British gov- 
 ernment to search American vessels in time of peace. The 
 right of search, except when specially conceded by treaty, is a 
 purely belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high 
 seas during peace. The undersigned apprehends, however, 
 that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the 
 nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the 
 voyage and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the 
 British cruisers is, to ascertain whether the vessels they meet 
 with are really American or not. The right asserted has, in 
 truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle 
 or in practice. It is simply a right to satisfy the party, who 
 has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel 
 actually is what her colors announce. This right we concede 
 as freely as we exercise. The British cruisers are not instruct- 
 ed to detain American vessels, under any circumstances what- 
 ever ; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all in- 
 terference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. But where 
 reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag has been 
 abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, 
 it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made mani- 
 fest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that 
 the government of the United States, which has stigmatized 
 and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of 
 
144 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining 
 the truth. 
 
 The undersigned had contended in his former note that the 
 legitimate inference from the arguments of Mr. Stevenson would 
 practically extend even to the sanction of piracy, when the per- 
 sons engaged in it should think fit to shelter themselves under 
 the flag of the United States. Mr. Stevenson observes, that 
 this is a misapprehension on the part of the undersigned ; and 
 he declares that, in denying the right of interfering with vessels 
 under the American flag, he intended to limit his objection to 
 vessels bona fide American, and not to those belonging to na- 
 tions who might fraudulently have assumed the flag of the Unit- 
 ed States. But it appears to the undersigned that his former 
 statement is by no means satisfactorily controverted by the 
 declaration of Mr. Stevenson. How is this bona fide to be prov- 
 ed ? Must not Mr. Stevenson either be prepared to maintain 
 that the flag alone is sufficient evidence of the nationality of the 
 vessel (which, in the face of his own repeated admissions, he 
 can not do), or must he not confess that the application of his 
 arguments would really afford protection to every lawless and 
 piratical enterprise ? 
 
 The undersigned had also expressed his belief that the prac- 
 tice was general of ascertaining, by visit, the real character of 
 any vessel on the high seas against which there should exist 
 reasonable ground of suspicion. Mr. Stevenson denies this ; 
 and he asks, what other nation than Great Britain had ever as- 
 serted, or attempted to exercise, such a right? In answer to 
 this question, the undersigned can at once refer to the avowed 
 and constant practice of the United States, whose cruisers, es- 
 pecially in the Gulf of Mexico, by the admission of their pub- 
 lic journals, are notoriously in the habit of examining all sus- 
 picious vessels, whether sailing under the English flag or any 
 other. In whose eyes are these vessels suspicious ? Doubt- 
 less, in those of the commanders of the American cruisers. But, 
 in truth, this right is quite as important to the United States as 
 to Great Britain ; nor is it easy to conceive how the maritime 
 intercourse of mankind could safely be carried on without such 
 a check. 
 
 It can scarcely be necessary to remind Mr. Everett that the 
 right thus claimed by Great Britain is not exercised for any 
 selfish purpose. It is asserted in the interest of humanity, and 
 in mitigation of the sufferings of our fellow-men. The object 
 has met with the concurrence of the whole civilized world, in- 
 cluding the United States of America ; and it ought to receive 
 universal assistance and support. 
 
 The undersigned can not abstain here from referring to the 
 conduct of an honorable and zealous officer commanding the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 145 
 
 naval force of the United States on the coast of Africa, who, 
 relying on the sincere desire of his government for the sup- 
 pression of the slave trade, and sensible of the abuse of the 
 American flag, entered into an engagement on the 11th of 
 March, 1840, with the officer in command of her majesty's 
 cruisers on the same station, by which they mutually request- 
 ed each other, and agreed, to detain all vessels under Ameri- 
 can colors employed in the traffic. If found to be American 
 property, such vessels were to be delivered over to the com- 
 mander of any American cruiser on the station ; or, if belong- 
 ing to other nations, they were to be dealt with according to 
 the treaties contracted by her majesty with the respective 
 states. The undersigned beiieves — and, indeed, after the state- 
 ment of Mr. Stevenson, he regrets to be unable to doubt — that 
 the conduct of this gallant officer, however natural and lauda- 
 ble in its object, has been disavowed by his government. 
 
 It is not the intention of the undersigned at present to advo- 
 cate the justice and propriety of the mutual right of search, as 
 conceded and regulated by treaty, or to weigh the reasons on 
 account of which this proposal has been rejected by the gov- 
 ernment of the United States. He took occasion, in a former 
 note, to observe, that concessions sanctioned by Great Britain 
 and France were not likely to be incompatible with the dignity 
 and independence of any other state which should be disposed 
 to follow their example. But the undersigned begs now to in- 
 form Mr. Everett that he has this day concluded a joint treaty 
 with France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, by which the mu- 
 tual right of search, within certain latitudes, is fully and effect- 
 ually established forever. This is, in truth, a holy alliance, in 
 which the undersigned would have rejoiced to see the United 
 States assume their proper place among the great powers of 
 Christendom, foremost in power, wealth, and civilization, and 
 connected together in the cause of mercy and justice. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that this right may be abused, like ev- 
 ery other which is delegated to many and different hands. It 
 is possible that it may be exercised wantonly and vexatiously ; 
 and should this be the case, it would not only call for remon- 
 strance, but would justify resentment. This, however, is in 
 the highest degree improbable; and if, in spite of the utmost 
 caution, an error should be committed, and any American ves- 
 sel should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt 
 and ample reparation. The undersigned begs to repeat, that 
 with American vessels, whatever be their destination, British 
 cruisers have no pretension, in any manner, to interfere. Such 
 vessels must be permitted, if engaged in it, to enjoy a monop- 
 oly of this unhallowed trade ; but the British government will 
 never endure that the fraudulent use of the American flag shall 
 
 K 
 
146 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 extend the iniquity to other nations by whom it is abhorred, 
 and who have entered into solemn treaties with this country 
 for its entire suppression. 
 
 In order to prove to Mr. Everett the anxiety of her majes- 
 ty's government to prevent all reasonable grounds of com- 
 plaint, the undersigned believes that he can not do better than 
 to communicate to him the substance of those instructions under 
 which the British cruisers act in relation to American vessels 
 when employed on this service : 
 
 If, from the intelligence which the officer commanding her 
 majesty's cruiser may have received, or from the maneuvers 
 of the vessel, or from other sufficient cause, he shall have rea- 
 son to believe that, although bearing the American flag, the 
 vessel does not belong to the United States, he is ordered, if 
 the state of the wind and weather shall admit of it, to go ahead 
 of the suspected vessel, after communicating his intention by 
 hailing, and to drop a boat on board of her to ascertain her 
 nationality, without detaining her if she shall prove to be really 
 an American vessel. But should this mode of visiting the ves- 
 sel be impracticable, he is to require her to be brought to for 
 this purpose. The officer who boards the vessel is merely to 
 satisfy himself of her nationality by her papers, or other proofs; 
 and should she really be an American vessel, he will immedi- 
 ately quit her, offering, with the consent of her commander, to 
 note on her papers the cause of suspecting her nationality, and 
 the number of minutes she was detained (if detained at all) for 
 the object in question. All the particulars are to be immedi- 
 ately entered on the log-book of the cruiser, and a full state- 
 ment of them is to be sent, by the first opportunity, direct to 
 England. 
 
 These are the precautions taken by her majesty's govern- 
 ment against the occurrence of abuse in the performance of 
 this service ; and they are ready to adopt any others which they 
 may think more effectual for the purpose, and which shall at 
 the same time be consistent with the attainment of the main 
 object in view. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson has said that he had no wish to exempt the 
 fraudulent use of the American flag from detection ; and this 
 being the case, the undersigned is unwilling to believe that a 
 government like that of the United States, professing the same 
 object and animated by the same motives as Great Britain, 
 should seriously oppose themselves to every possible mode by 
 which their own desire could be really accomplished. 
 
 The undersigned, &c. Aberdeen. 
 
 Edward Everett, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 147 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. — [extracts.] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 29, 1842. 
 
 By the " Britannia," arrived at Boston, I have received your 
 dispatch of the 28th of December (No. 4), and your dispatch 
 of the 31st of the same month (No. 5), with a postscript of the 
 3d of January. 
 
 The necessity of returning an early ansvi^er to these com- 
 munications (as the " Britannia" is expected to leave Boston 
 the 1st of February) obliges me to postpone a reply to those 
 parts of them which are not of considerable and immediate 
 
 importance. 
 
 * # * * * * 
 
 The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 
 20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord 
 Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you were quite 
 right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. 
 It is only by the exercise of calm reason that truth can be ar- 
 rived at in questions of a complicated nature ; and between 
 states, each of which understands and respects the intelligence 
 and the power of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness 
 to follow its guidance. At the present day, no state is so high 
 as that the principles of its intercourse with other nations are 
 above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the con- 
 trary, the whole civilized world, now vastly better informed on 
 such subjects than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the 
 principles adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading 
 states, necessarily constitutes a tribunal august in character 
 and formidable in its decisions. And it is before this tribunal, 
 and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the 
 usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of public law, 
 that governments which respect themselves and respect their 
 neighbors must be prepared to discuss, with candor and with 
 dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to spring 
 up between them. 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr, Webster. — [extract.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, March 1, 1842. 
 
 ****** 
 
 I received by the Britannia your dispatch No. 8, with the 
 accompanying documents, relative to the case of the " Creole." 
 As my note to the British government on this subject must of 
 necessity be somewhat long, I have thought it better to make 
 the other matters referred to in your dispatch the subject of a 
 separate communication to Lord Aberdeen. This communi- 
 cation I addressed to him on the 21st of February, and a copy 
 of it is herewith inclosed. 
 
148 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Ml'. Everett to Lord Aberdeen. — [extracts.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, February 11 , 1842. 
 
 The note of the Earl of Aberdeen to the undersigned of the 
 20th of December, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's to his lordship 
 of the 21st of October, has been read by the President with 
 satisfaction at the dispassionate tone with which Lord Aber- 
 deen has discussed the delicate and important subject of that 
 communication. The President considers that it is only by the 
 exercise of calm reason that truth can be arrived at in ques- 
 tions of a complicated nature ; and between states, each of 
 which understands and respects the intelligence and the power 
 of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness to follow its 
 dictates. At the present day, no state is so high as that the 
 principles of its intercourse with other nations are above ques- 
 tion, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, the whole 
 civilized world, now vastly better informed on such subjects 
 than in former ages, and alive and sensible to the principles 
 adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading states, neces- 
 sarily constitutes a tribunal august in character and formidable 
 in its decisions. It is before this tribunal, and upon the rules 
 of natural justice, moral propriety, the usages of modern times, 
 and the prescriptions of public law, that governments which 
 respect themselves and respect their neighbors must, in the 
 apprehension of the President, be prepared to discuss, with 
 candor and with dignity, any topics which may have caused 
 differences to spring up between them; and he places an un- 
 doubting reliance on the concurrence of her majesty's govern- 
 ment in these views of the principles which must govern the 
 intercourse of nations. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 The President of the United States has approved the con- 
 duct of the undersigned in forbearing, at the suggestion of the 
 Earl of Aberdeen, to pursue the discussion here of topics which 
 would form the subjects of negotiation between Lord Ash- 
 burton and the government of the United States at Washing- 
 ton. It is the duty, however, of the undersigned, to make an 
 observation to Lord Aberdeen on the subject of American ves- 
 sels detained, searched, and captured, which were enumerated 
 in the note of the undersigned of December 27th. The under- 
 signed is aware of the delay necessarily incident to official in- 
 quiries into transactions occurring in distant seas, and has every 
 reason to be satisfied with the promptness with which Lord 
 Aberdeen called the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to 
 these cases. Firmly persuaded, however, that the success of 
 any attempt to negotiate on this subject, in any form, will de- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 149 
 
 pend upon the promptness with which redress is afforded in 
 cases where wrong and injury have been inflicted, and with a 
 view of presenting to her majesty's government, disconnected 
 with other matters, a case which, it would seem to the under- 
 signed, carries ahnost in its statement the materials for a safe 
 opinion on its merits, the undersigned would respectfully invite 
 the attention of Lord Aberdeen to the case of the " Tig?ns." 
 In this case, on slender grounds of suspicion that the vessel was 
 engaged in the slave trade — grounds which, as the undersigned 
 understands, were immediately overruled by the Circuit Court 
 of the United States for the circuit of Massachusetts, before 
 which the proceedings were had — the American vessel, the 
 '* Tigris," was on the 7th October, 1840, by Lieutenant Matson, 
 the commander of her majesty's brig " Waterwitch," searched, 
 captured, taken out of her course, her voyage broken up, and 
 the vessel sent home, with a prize crew, under a very young 
 and (as is alleged) intemperate officer. The peculiarity of this 
 case is, that in a letter addressed by Mr. Matson " to the secre- 
 tary, or registrar, of either of the circuit courts of the United 
 States," he uses the following language : " These, sir, are my 
 reasons for taking upon myself the responsibility of detaining 
 the ' Tigris ;' but, in doing so, I find myself placed in a very 
 delicate position, not having received any orders or instructions 
 to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens of the United States, 
 whatever their employment might be." This admission appears 
 to deprive Lieutenant Matson of the justification relied upon in 
 some cases in other respects similar, viz. : that which consist- 
 ed in the agreement or understanding between Commodore 
 Tucker and Lieutenant Commandant Paine, authorizing each 
 other to institute a mutual search of British and American ves- 
 sels engaged in the slave trade. Mr. Matson alleges no knowl- 
 edge of that agreement, but expressly states that he acted on 
 his'ovyn responsibility, and without orders or instructions. 
 
 In separating this case from the others, it is not the purpose 
 of the undersigned to make a distinction in their merits, but to 
 call the attention of her majesty's government to a case which, 
 from the peculiar circumstances mentioned, would seem to ad- 
 mit a summary proceeding. 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, March 23, 1842. 
 
 The queen's first levee was held on the 16th of March. 
 While waiting in the room appropriated to the foreign minis- 
 ters. Lord Aberdeen took me aside and informed me that he 
 had an agreeable communication to make to me ; which was, 
 that the government had determined to indemnify the owners 
 of the " Tigris" for the damage sustained by the detention of 
 
150 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 that ship on the coast of Africa by the " Waterwitch." He said 
 he had examined the subject sufficiently to make up his mind 
 that the claim was just, and that he would immediately address 
 me a note to that effect, which he did the next day. A copy 
 of his note and of my answer are herewith inclosed. Whether 
 the documentary evidence in my hands, a copy of which ac- 
 companies my note to Lord Aberdeen, will be deemed suffi- 
 cient, remains to be seen ; but, at all events, the matter is in a 
 happy train of adjustment. 
 
 I deem this an event of very great importance. You will 
 bear in mind that the " Tigris" was one of four cases submit- 
 ted by Mr. Stevenson to the British government in May last. 
 Lord Palmerston did not refer them to the Admiralty till tour 
 months afterward. In my interview with Lord Aberdeen of 
 the 27th of December, I found that his attention had not been 
 drawn to these cases. I gave him their names, which he took 
 down at the time, and, on my return home, I sent him a mem- 
 orandum of them. Although I considered, with Lord Aber- 
 deen, that the discussion of the question of search was, by the 
 mission of Lord Ashburton, transferred to Washington — a view 
 of the subject which the President has been pleased to ap- 
 prove — I deemed it highly important to keep the individual 
 instances of outrage constantly before the government here, 
 with whom, of course, the reports of their cruisers on the coast 
 of Africa are deposited. I seized the opportunity, when ad- 
 dressing a note to Lord Aberdeen in obedience to the instruc- 
 tions contained in your dispatch of the 29th of January, ex- 
 pressing the satisfaction with which the mission of Lord Ash- 
 burton was regarded by the government of the United States, 
 again to urge the case of the " Tigris' upon his consideration; 
 this appearing to me the case admitting the readiest decision. 
 I took care, however, to guard against any inference unfavor- 
 able to the strength of the other claims which might be drawn 
 from putting this case prominently forward ; and I shall urge 
 the others at the proper time, in the manner best calculated to 
 cause them to be favorably considered. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Foreign Office, March 17, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, has had the honor to receive the note ad- 
 dressed to him on the 21st ultimo by Mr. Everett, envoy ex- 
 traordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
 of America ; and the undersigned has now the honor to ac- 
 quaint Mr. Everett that her majesty's government have fully 
 considered the case of the United States vessel " Tigris," ad- 
 verted to in that note, as having been detained on the coast of 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 151 
 
 Africa by the commander of her majesty's brig " Waterwitch," 
 and sent to the United States of America for trial. 
 
 From the statement which the officer commanding the 
 *' Waterwitcli" made in this case to the registrar of the United 
 States Court, it appears that he was conscious of not being 
 authorized, either by "instructions or orders" from his own 
 government, " to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens 
 of the United States, whatever their employment might be ;" 
 but that, in the course he adopted for enabling the courts of the 
 United States to deal with a crime which the law has deemed 
 to be a piracy, the commander of the " Waterwitch" believed 
 he was performing " a duty which a British officer owed to the 
 government of the United States." 
 
 The principle upon which this officer acted may, perhaps, in 
 the eyes of the government of a friendly power, afford some 
 ground of extenuation for the erroneous view which he took 
 of his duty. 
 
 But her majesty's government acknowledge that the act of 
 the officer commanding the " Waterwitch" was not justifiable 
 upon any principle of international law, or by any existing 
 treaty between Great Britain and the United States, and that 
 the case is one in which compensation may justly be demanded 
 by the United States government from the government of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 The undersigned has, accordingly, the honor to request that 
 Mr. Everett will direct the owners of the " Tigris" to send a 
 statement, accompanied by documentary evidence, of the dam- 
 age which they have sustained by the unauthorized act of the 
 British officer, in order that the account, as soon as it shall 
 have been substantiated to the satisfaction of her majesty's 
 government, may at once be settled. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
 Mr. Everett the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 Aberdeen. 
 
 E. Everett, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 46 Grosvenor Place, March 29, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to ac- 
 knowledge the receipt of the note of the Earl of Aberdeen, her 
 majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affiiirs, 
 dated 17th of March instant, in which Lord Aberdeen informs 
 the undersigned that her majesty's government acknowledge 
 that the act of the officer commanding the " Waterwitch," in 
 detaining the American ship " Tigris" on the coast of Africa, 
 was not justifiable on any principle of international law, or by 
 
152 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 any existing treaty between Great Britain and the United 
 States, and that the case is one in which compensation may 
 justly be demanded by the United States government from the 
 government of Great Britain. 
 
 The undersigned has received this communication from the 
 Earl of Aberdeen with the highest satisfaction, and will lose 
 no time in transmitting it to his government. The President 
 of the United States, the undersigned is persuaded, will regard 
 it as a signal manifestation of the principles of justice which 
 animate her majesty's government, and of a determination to 
 repair the wrongs which have been inflicted upon the American 
 flag and commerce in the African seas. From such a determ- 
 ination, thus manifested, the happiest influence on the relations 
 of the two governments may be confidently anticipated. 
 
 In reference to the request of Lord Aberdeen to be furnished 
 with a statement by the owners of the •' Tig7'is,'^ accompanied 
 with documentary evidence, of the damage which they have 
 sustained by the unauthorized act of the British officer, the un- 
 dersigned has the honor herewith to transmit, for more con- 
 venient perusal, a copy of such a statement, which has lately 
 been received from Washington. The original, duly authen- 
 ticated, is also in the hands of the undersigned, and will be sent 
 to Lord Aberdeen whenever a wish to that effect may be ex- 
 pressed by his lordship. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to tender to Lord Aberdeen 
 
 the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 Edward Everett. 
 The Earl of Aberdeen, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 M7\ Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extracts.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, June 1, 1842. 
 
 Having received a letter from the owners of the " Tigris^ 
 inclosing an additional statement of their claim, I addressed a 
 note to Lord Aberdeen transmitting a copy of the letter and 
 statement. This will serve, for the present, to keep the sub- 
 ject before the government. If, within a reasonable time, I do 
 not hear from them in reference to this claim, I shall press for 
 its prompt adjustment, and at the same time inquire what prog- 
 ress has been made in the investigation of the other cases. A 
 copy of my note to Lord Aberdeen on this subject is herewith 
 transmitted. ***** 
 
 He (Lord Aberdeen) then observed that he had, within a 
 day or two, received the statement of the officer by whom the 
 " Tigris" was detained, and found that he was quite justified in 
 her detention. I asked, on what ground 1 He replied, that he 
 acted in virtue of the special agreement between Lieutenant 
 Paine and Commodore Tucker ; adding, " This, to be sure, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 153 
 
 makes no difference in the question as between the two gov- 
 ernments, since that agreement was disavowed by yours ; but 
 it will relieve the officer of the personal responsibility, and 
 throw it on the government." As this observation has a very 
 important bearing on several cases of detention and capture 
 which were discussed by Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston, 
 I must request your instructions on the subject of that agree- 
 
 Meantime, you will please to understand that Lord Aber- 
 deen distinctly stated that he did not intend, in consequence of 
 the British officer (Lieutenant Matson, of the '^Waterioitch") 
 having acted under Lieutenant Paine's arrangement, to depart 
 from his agreement to indemnify the owners of the " Tigris." 
 
 I observed to Lord Aberdeen, that, though it was not my 
 business to interfere in any question between Lieutenant Mat- 
 son and his government, I could not but remark to him that 
 this officer himself, in a kind of circular letter, which he sent 
 with the " Tigyns" addressed to the courts of the United States, 
 affirmed that he had taken upon himself the responsibility of 
 detaining the " Tigris," and that he had received no orders or 
 instructions to interfere with vessels belonging to citizens of 
 the United States, whatever their employment might be. I 
 added, that it seemed to me extraordinary that he should thus 
 express himself, if, in fact, he was acting under specific instruc- 
 tions from the British commodore, given in consequence of the 
 agreement with Mr. Paine. It looked like, an after-thought on 
 Mr. Matson's part. Lord Aberdeen was of a different opinion, 
 but did not appear to have adverted particularly to the terms 
 of Lieutenant Matson's letter, although they were quoted by 
 me in the note which I addressed to him on the 21st of Feb- 
 ruary. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 46 Grosvenor Place. Mmj 26, 1842. 
 
 Mr. Everett presents his compliments to the Earl of Aber- 
 deen, and has the honor to inform his lordship that, on the re- 
 ceipt of Lord Aberdeen's note of the 17th of March, Mr. 
 Everett lost no time in acquainting the owners of the " Tigris" 
 with the purpose of her majesty's government to indemnify 
 them for the losses sustained by the capture of their vessel. 
 In conformity with the request of the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. 
 Everett desired the owners of the " Tigris" to transmit to him 
 an authenticated statement of the damage they had sustained. 
 This had been, in part, already done in the statement previously 
 received by Mr. Everett from the Department of State at 
 Washington, a copy of which was communicated by Mr. 
 Everett to the Earl of Aberdeen on the 29th of March. 
 
154 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Mr. Everett has within a few days received a letter from 
 the owners of the " Tig7-is" inclosing an additional statement 
 of their losses, which letter and the accompanying statement 
 are herewith inclosed, in further compliance with Lord Aber- 
 deen's request. 
 
 The Earl of Aberdeen, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extract.] 
 
 London, June 17, 1842. 
 
 In my last dispatch I repeated a conversation which took 
 place between Lord Aberdeen and myself, at the levee on the 
 1st instant, on the subject of compensation for the ^^ Seamew" 
 another of the vessels detained, searched, and sent out of her 
 course in the African seas. Having waited a reasonable time 
 without hearing further from Lord Aberdeen on the subject, I 
 addressed him a note on the 13th instant, a copy of which is 
 inclosed. I received on the 15th a private note from Lord 
 Canning, the first Under Secretary of State, informing me that 
 I should have an official answer to mine of the 13th in time for 
 the next mail steamer. Accordingly, I received last evening 
 a note from Lord Aberdeen, dated the IGtii, which I herewith 
 transmit, and which contains the official annunciation that this 
 governtnent will indemnify the owners of the " Seamew" for the 
 loss sustained by the detention of their vessel. Lord Aber- 
 deen's note contains some remarks on the subject of the treat- 
 ment of the crew of the " Seamew" while on board the " Per- 
 sian" (the British cruiser), the object of which is to show that 
 the statement of the mate of the " Seajiiew" in reference to that 
 matter, is false or exaggerated. It is of no great importance 
 to pursue the discussion of such a point, although we must not 
 allow it to be taken for granted that the statements of their 
 people are necessarily true, and those of our officers and men 
 false. I shall, in acknowledging the receipt of Lord Aber- 
 deen's note, take care to protest against any such assumption. 
 
 As I am furnished in advance with documentary evidence, 
 which I suppose will be sufficient to establish the amount of the 
 loss in the case of the ^^Seamew," as well as that of the " Tigris,^' 
 I anticipate no unreasonable delay in the final liquidation of the 
 claims. 
 
 When the various modes are considered in which it would 
 have been possible, pending the general negotiations at Wash- 
 ington, to postpone all final action on any cases of this kind 
 without a positive denial of justice, I think the President will 
 find, in the handsome manner in which reparation has been 
 promised in these two cases, the proof of a sincere willingness 
 on the part of the present ministry to do us justice. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 155 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, 46 Grosvenor Place, June 13, 1842 
 
 My Lord, — At her majesty's levee, on the 1st instant, your 
 lordship remarked to me that, from a cursory examination of 
 papers recently transmitted from the Admiralty to the Foreign 
 Office, relative to the detention and search of American vessels 
 in the African seas, your lordship was led to think that, besides 
 the case of the " Tigris," there was another case (your lordship 
 thought that of the " Seamew") in which compensation would 
 be found due from her majesty's government to the owners. I 
 have now the honor respectfully to inquire whether there is any 
 objection to my communicating this expression of your lord- 
 ship's opinion to the government of the United States and the 
 owners of the vessel, in my dispatches to be forwarded on the 
 19th instant. 
 
 The salutary influence of the annunciation in the United 
 States of the decision of her majesty's government in the case 
 of the " Tigi'is," and a persuasion that this influence would be 
 greatly increased by the information I am desirous of com- 
 municating, form, with my conviction of the justice and reason- 
 ableness of the claims in question, my motives for submitting 
 the present inquiry. 
 
 I have the honor to tender your lordship the assurance of 
 my most distinguished consideration. Edward Everett. 
 
 The Earl of Aberdeen, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Foreign Office, Jvne 16, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, has the honor to refer Mr. Everett, envoy 
 extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
 of America, to the several communications which have passed 
 between her majesty's government and the legation of the 
 United States relative to the case of the United States vessel 
 " Seamew,'^ detained by her majesty's ship " Persian," Com- 
 mander Quin. 
 
 The undersigned has now the honor to inform Mr. Everett, 
 that her majesty's government, having received the information 
 collected on this subject, and having fully considered the case, 
 have come to the conclusion that the seizure and detention of 
 the " Seamew" by her majesty's ship " Persian" was not war- 
 ranted either by the general law of nations, or by any partic- 
 ular treaty between this country and the United States of 
 America. 
 
 There appears to be no doubt that the " Seamew" was 
 not merely sailing under American colors, but that she was 
 
156 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 also bona fide American property, and manned by an American 
 crew. A British cruiser had, therefore, no right to capture 
 her, and her majesty's government acknowledge that the case 
 is one in which compensation may justly be demanded by the 
 government of the United States. 
 
 The undersigned, however, is glad to have it in his power 
 to inform Mr. Everett, that while the evidence given in the 
 course of the inquiry instituted into this case shows that Com- 
 mander Quin was by no means justified in interfering with the 
 *' Seamew," it satisfactorily disproves the evidently inflamed 
 and exaggerated statements made by some of the crew of that 
 vessel as to the conduct of the officers of her majesty's ship 
 " Persian," and their own personal sufferings on the voyage to 
 St. Helena. 
 
 It is due to the memory of Commander Quin, and to the 
 other officers of her majesty's navy concerned in this matter, 
 to state that all possible care was taken in moving the cargo 
 of the " Seamew" during the search ; that it was restored safe 
 and in good condition, exactly as before ; and that the charge 
 of carousing and riotous conduct preferred against the officer 
 and petty officer of her majesty's ship " Persian" is most posi- 
 tively and fully denied. 
 
 With regard to the treatment experienced by the crew of the 
 " Seamew" on board the " Persian," it may be sufficient to state 
 that they were placed in the messes of the lower deck of that 
 sloop, which were on full allowance of all provisions ; and that, 
 so far from any complaint being made, or any dissatisfaction 
 shown by them, they, on the decease of Commander Quin, 
 asked and obtained permission to show their respect for that 
 officer by following his body to the grave ; and that, finally, 
 Mr. Shreve, the second mate of the " Seamew," was landed 
 with his own men at St. Helena, at his own request ; and, be- 
 fore he left the vessel, came to the officer in command of the 
 " Persian," on the quarter-deck, and thanked him for the kind- 
 ness they had received while on board that sloop. 
 
 It now only remains for the undersigned to inform Mr. 
 Everett that the statement made by the owners of the " Sea- 
 mew" as to the losses they have sustained, and which was in- 
 closed in Mr. Everett's note to the undersigned of the 29th of 
 March last, will be transmitted to the proper department, in 
 order that, as soon as the account shall have been substantiated 
 to the satisfaction of her majesty's government, it may at once 
 be settled. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
 Mr. Everett the assurance of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 Aberdeen. 
 
 Edwaed Everett, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 157 
 
 Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster. — [extract.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, London, July 1, 1842. 
 
 ^ -T^ ^ Tf ■ tP ^ * 
 
 With my last dispatch I transmitted a note from the Earl of 
 Aberdeen, announcing the purpose of this government to make 
 compensation to the owners of the " Seamew." I now beg leave 
 to send you my answer to Lord Aberdeen's note. Although 
 the discussion of the conduct of the British boarding officers is 
 of no great interest, I thought it necessary to reply to the re- 
 marks of Lord Aberdeen on that point. 
 
 [iKCLOSURE.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, June 30, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to ac- 
 knowledge the receipt of a note of the 16th instant from the 
 Earl of Aberdeen, her majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, announcing the intention of her majesty's 
 government to make compensation to the owners of the " Sea- 
 mew" for the loss sustained by them in consequence of the de- 
 tention of their vessel on the coast of Africa, on the 27th of 
 October, 1840. 
 
 The undersigned has had great pleasure in transmitting this 
 note to his government, by whom he is sure it will be regarded 
 as a new and highly satisfactory proof of the purpose of the 
 government of her majesty to render full and prompt justice to 
 the citizens of the United States who have suffered losses by 
 the detention and capture of their vessels by her majesty's 
 cruisers in the African seas. 
 
 The undersigned supposes that the documents already trans- 
 mitted by him to the Earl of Aberdeen relative to the " Tigris" 
 and " Seamew" — the property of the same owners — will be 
 deemed to contain a satisfactory statement of the nature and 
 amount of their losses. The originals of those documents will 
 be furnished to Lord Aberdeen whenever his lordship may be 
 pleased to express a wish to that effect. The undersigned is 
 persuaded the moderation of the estimates will not escape 
 Lord Aberdeen's notice, and will contribute to a speedy and 
 satisfactory settlement of the claims. 
 
 In reference to Lord Aberdeen's remark on what his lord- 
 ship considers " the evidently inflamed and exaggerated state- 
 ments made by some of the crew of the ' Seamew,' " the under- 
 signed will observe that if such be indeed the character of their 
 statements, it ought to be remembered that, on any supposition 
 as to facts, the provocation was extreme. If the master and 
 crew of an unarmed merchantman, unlawfully dispossessed of 
 
158 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 their vessel, and their property contained in it, carried by force 
 on board a foreign cruiser, and finally compelled to find their 
 way home as they can, should relate what had happened in 
 terms of exaggeration, and even bitterness, the candor of Lord 
 Aberdeen will admit that it would not be matter of reproach 
 or wonder. 
 
 The most serious of the complaints against the officers of the 
 " Persian^ are made on oath by the captain and mate of the 
 *' Seamew." The undersigned admits that they are not impar- 
 tial witnesses, but they have no strong interest to exaggerate 
 the ill-treatment which they say they received. Without any 
 desire to impeach the credibility of the evidence given in be- 
 half of the officers of the " Persian," if, as the undersigned sup- 
 poses, their personal liability depends in some degree upon 
 their conduct in boarding and overhauling the vessel, they 
 have a direct and powerful interest to represent their behavior 
 in the most favorable manner. 
 
 That the cargo of the " Seamew" " was restored safe and in 
 good condition exactly as before," would seem to be, in the 
 nature of things, scarcely possible. It could not be believed, 
 but on the strongest and most unexceptionable evidence, that 
 a man-of-war's crew, overhauling a foreign merchantman in a 
 distant sea, under suspicion of being concerned in the slave 
 trade, and displacing and replacing her whole cargo in one 
 operation, should perform it with the same care with which 
 that cargo was gradually laid in by those whose livelihood de- 
 pends on the manner in which their work is performed : men 
 admitted to be the most prudent and careful mariners in the 
 world. It appears, moreover, from the report of the persons 
 by whom the " Seamew'" was surveyed at St. Helena — two of 
 whom were American and two British captains of vessels — 
 that the cargo, on the arrival of the vessel there, was actually 
 found in a condition in which scarce any evidence would per- 
 suade the undersigned that a Salem shipmaster had originally 
 stowed it. The undersigned, &c. 
 
 Edward Everett. 
 The Earl of Aberdeen, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, February, 1843. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred a resolu- 
 tion of the House of Representatives of the 22d instant, request- 
 ing that the President of the United States "communicate to 
 that House, if not in his opinion improper, whatever corre- 
 spondence or communication may have been received from the 
 British government respecting the President's construction of 
 the late British treaty concluded at Washington, as it concerns 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 159 
 
 an alleged right to visit American vessels," has the honor to 
 report to the President that Mr. Fox, her Britannic majesty's 
 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, came to the 
 Department of State on the 24th instant, and informed the 
 Secretary that he had received from Lord Aberdeen, her ma- 
 jesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a dis- 
 patch, under date of the 18th of January, which he was di- 
 rected to read to the Secretary of State of the United States. 
 The substance of the dispatch was, that there was a statement 
 in a paragraph of the President's Message to Congress, at the 
 opening of the present session, of serious import, because, to 
 persons unacquainted with the facts, it would tend to convey 
 the supposition not only that the question of the right of search 
 had been disavowed by the plenipotentiary at Washington, but 
 that Great Britain had made concessions on that point. 
 
 That the President knew that the right of search never 
 formed the subject of discussion during the late negotiation, 
 and that neither was any concession required by the United 
 States government, nor made by Great Britain. 
 
 That the engagement entered into by the parties to the 
 treaty of Washington for suppressing the African slave trade 
 was unconditionally proposed and agreed to. 
 
 That the British government saw in it an attempt, on the 
 part of the government of the United States, to give a practical 
 effect to their repeated declarations against that trade, and rec- 
 ognized with satisfaction an advance toward the humane and 
 enlightened policy of all Christian states, from which they an- 
 ticipated much good. That Great Britain would scrupulously 
 fulfill the conditions of this engagement, but that from the prin- 
 ciples which she has constantly asserted, and which are re- 
 corded in the correspondence between the ministers of the 
 United States in England and herself in 1841, England has not 
 receded, and would not recede. That he had no intention to 
 renew, at present, the discussion upon the subject. That his 
 last note was yet unanswered. That the President might be 
 assured that Great Britain would always respect the just claims 
 of the United States. That the British government made no 
 pretension to interfere, in any manner whatever, either by 
 detention, visit, or search, with vessels of the United States, 
 known or believed to be such ; but that it still maintained, and 
 would exercise, when necessary, its own right to ascertain the 
 genuineness of any flag which a suspected vessel might bear; 
 that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary 
 error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be 
 sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded ; but that it 
 should entertain, for a single instant, the notion of abandoning 
 .he right itself, would be quite impossible. 
 
IGO DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 That these observations had been rendered necessary by the 
 message to Congress. That the President is undoubtedly at 
 liberty to address that assembly in any terms which he may 
 think proper ; but if the queen's servants should not deem it 
 expedient to advise her majesty also to advert to these topics 
 in her speech from the throne, they desired, nevertheless, to 
 hold themselves perfectly free, when questioned in Parliament, 
 to give all such explanations as they might feel to be inconsist- 
 ent with their duty and necessary for the elucidation of the truth. 
 
 The paper having been read and its contents understood, 
 Mr. Fox was told, in reply, that the subject would be taken 
 into consideration, and that a dispatch relative to it would be 
 sent at an early day to the American minister in London, who 
 would have instructions to read it to her majesty's principal 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 To the President. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr, Everett. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, March 28, 1843. 
 
 Sir, — I transmit to you with this dispatch a message from 
 the President of the United States to Congress, communicated 
 on the 27th of February, and accompanied by a report made 
 from this department to the President, of the substance of a dis- 
 patch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, which was by him read 
 to me on the 24th ultimo. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen's dispatch, as you will perceive, was occa- 
 sioned by a passage in the President's message to Congress at 
 the opening of its late session. The particular passage is not 
 stated by his lordship ; but no mistake will be committed, it is 
 presumed, in considering it to be that which was quoted by 
 Sir Robert Peel and other gentlemen in the debate in the House 
 of Commons, on the answer to the queen's speech, on the 3d 
 of February. 
 
 The President regrets that it should have become necessary 
 to hold a diplomatic correspondence upon the subject of a com- 
 munication from the head of the executive government to the 
 Legislature, drawing after it, as in this case, the further neces- 
 sity of referring to observations made by persons in high and 
 responsible stations, in debates of public bodies. Such a ne- 
 cessity, however, seems to be unavoidably incurred in conse- 
 quence of Lord Aberdeen's dispatch ; for, although the Pres- 
 ident's recent message may be regarded as a clear exposition 
 of his opinions on the subject, yet a just respect for her majes- 
 ty's government, and a disposition to meet all questions with 
 promptness, as well as with frankness and candor, require that 
 a formal answer should be made to that dispatch. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 161 
 
 The words in the message at the opening of the session which 
 are complained of, it is supposed, are the following: "Although 
 Lord Aberdeen, in his correspondence with the American en- 
 voys at London, expressly disclaimed all right to detain an 
 American ship on the high seas, even if found with a cargo of 
 slaves on board, and restricted the British pretension to a mere 
 claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well be discerned by 
 the executive of the United States how such visit and inquiry 
 could be made without detention on the voyage, and consequent 
 interruption to the trade. It was regarded as the right of 
 search, presented only in a new form, and expressed in differ- 
 ent words ; and I therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to 
 declare, in my annual message to Congress, that no such con- 
 cession could be made, and that the United States had both the 
 will and the ability to enforce their own laws, and to protect 
 their flag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden by 
 those laws, and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world." 
 
 This statement would tend, as Lord Aberdeen thinks, to con- 
 vey the supposition, not only that the question of the right of 
 search had been disavowed by the British plenipotentiary at 
 Washington, but that Great Britain had made concessions on 
 that point. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen is entirely correct in saying that the claim 
 of a right of search was not discussed during the late negotia- 
 tion, and that neither was any concession required by this gov- 
 ernment, nor made by that of her Britannic majesty. 
 
 The 8th and 9th articles of the Treaty of Washington con- 
 stitute a mutual stipulation for concerted efl^orts to abolish the 
 African slave trade. This stipulation, it may be admitted, has 
 no other effects on the pretensions of either party than this : 
 Great Britain had claimed as a right that which this govern- 
 ment could not admit to be a right, and, in the exercise of a 
 just and proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted to which 
 might render unnecessary both the assertion and the denial of 
 such claim. 
 
 There probably are those who think that what Lord Aber- 
 deen calls a right of visit, and which he attempts to distinguish 
 from the right of search, ought to have been expressly ac- 
 knowledged by the government of the United States ; at the 
 same time, there are those on the other side who think that the 
 formal surrender of such right of visit should have been de- 
 manded by the United States as a precedent condition to the 
 negotiation for treaty stipulations on the subject of the African 
 slave trade. But the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, 
 nor denies the claim in terms ; it neither formally insists upon 
 it, nor formally renounces it. Still, the whole proceeding 
 shows that the object of the stipulation was to avoid such dif- 
 
 L 
 
162 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ferences and disputes as had already arisen, and the serious 
 practical evils and inconveniences which, it can not be denied, 
 are alv^ays liable to result from the practice which Great Brit- 
 ain had asserted to be lawful. These evils and inconvenien- 
 ces had been acknowledged by both governments. They had 
 been such as to cause much irritation, and to threaten to dis- 
 turb the amicable sentiments which prevailed between them. 
 Both governments were sincerely desirous of abolishing the 
 slave trade; both governments were equally desirous of avoid- 
 ing occasion of complaint by their respective citizens and sub- 
 jects ; and both governments regarded the 8th and 9th articles 
 as effectual for their avowed purpose, and likely, at the same 
 time, to preserve all friendly relations, and to take away causes 
 of future individual complaints. The Treaty of Washington 
 was intended to fulfill the obligations entered into by the Treaty 
 of Ghent, It stands by itself; is clear and intelligible. It 
 speaks its own language, and manifests its own purpose. It 
 needs no interpretation, and requires no comment. As a fact, 
 as an important occurrence in national intercourse, it may 
 have important bearings on existing questions respecting the 
 public law ; and individuals, or perhaps governments, may not 
 agree as to what these bearings really are. Great Britain has 
 discussions, if not controversies, with other great European 
 states upon the subject of visit or search. These states will 
 naturally make their own commentary on the Treaty of Wash- 
 ington, and draw their own inferences from the fact that such 
 a treaty has been entered into. Its stipulations, in the mean 
 time, are plain, explicit, and satisfactory to both parties, and 
 will be fulfilled on the part of the United States, and, it is not 
 doubted, on the part of Great Britain also, with the utmost good 
 faith. 
 
 Holding this to be the true character of the treaty, I might, 
 perhaps, excuse myself from entering into the consideration of 
 the grounds of that claim of a right to visit merchant ships for 
 certain purposes, in time of peace, which Lord Aberdeen as- 
 serts for the British government, and declares that it can never 
 surrender. But I deem it right, nevertheless, and no more than 
 justly respectful toward the British government, not to leave 
 the point without remark. 
 
 In his recent message to Congress, the President, referring 
 to the language of Lord Aberdeen in his note to Mr. Everett 
 of the 20th of December, 1841, and in his late dispatch to Mr. 
 Fox, says : " These declarations may well lead us to doubt 
 whether the apparent difference between the two governments 
 is not rather one of definition than of principle." 
 
 Lord Aberdeen, in his note to you of the 20th of December, 
 says : " The undersigned again renounces, as he has already 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 163 
 
 done in the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the 
 British government to search American vessels in time of 
 peace. The right of search, except when specially conceded 
 by treaty, is a purely belligerent right, and can have no exist- 
 ence on the high seas daring peace. The undersigned appre- 
 hends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the 
 verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to 
 the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. The 
 sole purpose of the British cruisers is to ascertain whether the 
 vessels they meet with are really American or not. The right 
 asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, 
 either in principle or practice. It is simply a right to satisfy 
 the party who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, 
 that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. This 
 right we concede as freely as we exercise. The British cruis- 
 ers are not instructed to detain American vessels under any 
 circumstances whatever ; on the contrary, they are ordei^ed to 
 abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or 
 otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion exists that the 
 American flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the 
 vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, 
 had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations 
 of their representative, that the government of the United 
 States, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, 
 should object to the adoption of such means as are indispensa- 
 bly necessary for ascertaining the truth," 
 
 And in his recent dispatch to Mr. Fox, his lordship further 
 says, " that the President might be assured that Great Britain 
 would always respect the just claims of the United States. 
 That the British government made no pretension to interfere 
 in any manner whatever, either by detention, visit, or search, 
 with vessels of the United States, known or believed to be 
 such ; but that it still maintained, and would exercise when 
 necessary, its own right to ascertain the genuineness of any 
 flag which a suspected vessel might bear ; that if, in the exer- 
 cise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of 
 every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt 
 reparation would be aflbrded ; but that it should entertain, for 
 a single instant, the notion of abandoning the right itself, would 
 be quite impossible." 
 
 This, then, is the British claim, as asserted by her majesty's 
 government. 
 
 In his remarks in the speech already referred to, in the 
 House of Commons, the first minister of the crown said: 
 " There is nothing more distinct than the right of visit is from 
 the right of search. Search is a belligerent right, and not to 
 be exercised in time of peace, except when it has been conced- 
 
164 DII'LOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS^ 
 
 ed by treaty. The right of search extends not only to the ves- 
 sel, but to the cargo also. The right of visit is quite distinct 
 from this, though the two are often confounded. The right of 
 search, with respect to American vessels, we entirely and ut- 
 terly disclaim ; nay, more, if we knew that an American ves- 
 sel were furnished with all the materials requisite for the slave 
 trade ; if we knew that the decks were prepared to receive 
 hundreds of human beings within a space in which life is al- 
 most impossible, still we should be bound to let that American 
 vessel pass on. But the right we claim is to know whether a 
 vessel pretending to be American, and hoisting the American 
 flag, be bona fide American." 
 
 The President's Message is regarded as holding opinions in 
 opposition to these. 
 
 The British government, then, supposes that the right of visit 
 and the right of search are essentially distinct in their nature, 
 and that this difference is well known and generally acknowl- 
 edged ; that the difference between them consists in their dif- 
 ferent objects and purposes : one, the visit, having for its ob- 
 ject nothing but to ascertain the nationality of the vessel ; the 
 other, the search, by an inquisition, not only into the nationali- 
 ty of the vessel, but the nature and object of her voyage, and 
 the true ownership of her cargo. 
 
 The government of the United States, on the other hand, 
 maintains that there is no such well-known and acknowledged, 
 nor, indeed, any broad and generic difference between what has 
 been usually called visit, and what has been usually called 
 ■ search ; that the right of visit, to be effectual, must come, in 
 the end, to include search ; and thus to exercise, in peace, an 
 authority which the law of nations only allows in times of war. 
 If such well-known distinction exists, where are the proofs of 
 it ? What writers of authority on public law, what adjudica- 
 tions in courts of Admiralty, what public treaties recognize it? 
 No such recognition has presented itself to the government of 
 the United States ; but, on the contrary, it understands that 
 public writers, courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for two 
 centuries, used the words " visit" and " search" in the same sense. 
 What Great Britain and the United States mean by the "right 
 of search," in its broadest sense, is called by Continental writ- 
 ers and jurists by no other name than the " right of visit." 
 Visit, therefore, as it has been understood, implies not only a 
 right to inquire into the national character, but to detain the 
 vessel, to stop the progress of the voyage, to examine papers, 
 to decide on their regularity and authenticity, and to make in- 
 quisition on board for enemy's property, and into the business 
 which the vessel is engaged in. In other words, it describes 
 the entire right of belligerent visitation and search. Such a 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 165 
 
 right is justly disclaimed by the British government in time of 
 peace. They, nevertheless, insist on a right which they de- 
 nominate a right of visit, and by that word describe the claim 
 which they assert. It is proper, and due to the importance 
 and delicacy of the questions involved, to take care that, in 
 discussing them, both governments understand the terms which 
 may be used in the same sense. If, indeed, it should be mani- 
 fest that the difference between the parties is only verbal, it 
 might be hoped that no harm would be done ; but the govern- 
 ment of the United States thinks itself not justly chargeable 
 with excessive jealousy, or with too great scrupulosity in the 
 use of words, in insisting on its opinion that there is no such 
 distinction as the British government maintains between visit 
 and search ; and that there is no right to visit in time of peace, 
 except in the execution of revenue laws or other municipal 
 regulations, in which cases the right is usually exercised near 
 the coast, or within the marine league, or where the vessel is 
 justly suspected of violating the law of nations by piratical 
 aggression ; but, wherever exercised, it is a right of search. 
 Nor can the United States government agree that the term 
 " right" is justly applied to such exercise of power as the British 
 government thinks it indispensable to maintain in certain cases. 
 
 The right asserted is a right to ascertain whether a mer- 
 chant vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which 
 she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circum- 
 stances which render her liable to the suspicion, first, that she 
 is not entitled to the protection of the flag ; and, secondly, that, 
 if not entitled to it, she is, either by the law of England, as an 
 English vessel, or under the provisions of treaties with certain 
 European powers, subject to the supervision and search of 
 British cruisers. 
 
 And yet Lord Aberdeen says, " that if, in the exercise of this 
 right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every pre- 
 caution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt repara- 
 tion would be afforded." 
 
 It is not easy to perceive how these consequences can be 
 admitted justly to flow from the fair exercise of a clear right. 
 If injury be produced by the exercise of a right, it would seem 
 strange that it should be repaired, as if it had been the effect 
 of a wrongful act. The general rule of law certainly is, that, 
 in the proper and prudent exercise of his own right, no one is 
 answerable for undesigned injuries. It may be said that the 
 right is a qualified right ; that it is a right to do certain acts 
 of force at the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, and of 
 being made answerable for all damages. But such an argu- 
 ment would prove every trespass to be matter of right, subject 
 only to just responsibility. If force were allowed to such rea- 
 
166 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 soning in other cases, it would follow that an individual's right 
 in his own property was hardly more than a well-founded 
 claim for compensation if he should be deprived of it. But 
 compensation is that which is rendered for injury, and is not 
 commutation, or forced equivalent, for acknowledged rights. 
 It implies, at least in its general interpretation, the commission 
 of some wrongful act. 
 
 But, without pressing further these inquiries into the accura- 
 cy and propriety of deiinitions and the use of words, I proceed 
 to draw your attention to the thing itself, and to consider what 
 these acts are which the British government insists its cruis- 
 ers have a right to perform, and to what consequences they 
 naturally and necessarily tend. An eminent member of the 
 House of Commons thus states the British claim, and his state- 
 ment is acquiesced in and adopted by the first minister of the 
 crown : 
 
 " The claim of this country is for the right of our cruisers to 
 ascertain whether a merchant vessel is justly entitled to the 
 protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, 
 such vessel being in circumstances which rendered her liable 
 to the suspicion, first, that she was not entitled to the protec- 
 tion of the flag ; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, 
 either under the law of nations or the provisions of treaties, 
 subject to the supervision and control of our cruisers."* 
 
 Now the question is, hy what means is this ascertainment to 
 be effected ? 
 
 As we understand the general and settled rules of public 
 law, in respect to ships of war sailing under the authority of 
 their government, " to arrest pirates and other public offend- 
 ers," there is no reason why they may not approach any ves- 
 sels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real 
 characters. Such a right of approach seems indispensable for 
 the fair and discreet exercise of their authority ; and the use 
 of it can not be justly deemed indicative of any design to insult 
 or injure those they approach, or to impede them in their law- 
 ful commerce. On the other hand, it is as clear that no ship 
 is, under such circumstances, bound to lie by, or wait the ap- 
 proach of any other ship. She is at full liberty to pursue her 
 voyage in her own way, and to use all necessary precautions 
 to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile attack. 
 Her right to the free use of the ocean is as perfect as that of 
 any other ship. An entire equality is presumed to exist. She 
 has a right to consult her own safety, but at the same time she 
 must take care not to violate the rights of others. She may 
 use any precautions dictated by the prudence or fears of her 
 officers, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her 
 
 * Mr. Wood, now Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. . 167 
 
 voyage ; but she is not at liberty to inflict injuries upon other 
 innocent parties simply because of conjectural dangers. 
 
 But if the vessel thus approached attempts to avoid the ves- 
 sel approaching, or does not comply with her commander's or- 
 der to send him her papers for his inspection, nor consent to 
 be visited or detained, what is next to be done ? Is force to be 
 used ? And if force be used, may that force be lawfully repel- 
 led ? These questions lead at once to the elemental principle 
 — the essence of the British claim. Suppose the merchant ves- 
 sel be in truth an American vessel engaged in lawful commerce, 
 and that she does not choose to be detained. Suppose she re- 
 sists the visit. What is the consequence ? In all cases in 
 which the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the ex- 
 ercise of that right is regarded as just cause of condemnation, 
 both of vessel and cargo. Is that penalty, or what other pen- 
 alty, to be incurred by resistance to visit in time of peace ? Or 
 suppose that force be met by force, gun returned for gun, and 
 the commander of the cruiser, or some of his seamen, be killed ; 
 what description of offense will have been committed ? It 
 would be said, in behalf of the commander of the cruiser, that 
 he mistook the vessel for a vessel of England, Brazil, or Portu- 
 gal ; but does this mistake of his take away from the American 
 vessel the right of self-defense 1 The writers of authority de- 
 clare it to be a principle of natural law, that the privilege of 
 self-defense exists against an assailant who mistakes the object 
 of his attack for another whom he had the right to assail. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen can not fail to see, therefore, what serious 
 consequences might ensue if it were to be admitted that this 
 claim to visit, in time of peace, however limited or defined, 
 should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right ; for if 
 it exist as a right, it must be followed by corresponding duties 
 and obligations, and the failure to fulfill those duties would 
 naturally draw penal consequences after it, till ere long it would 
 become, in truth, little less, or little other than the belligerent 
 right of search. 
 
 If visit or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be 
 in most cases merely idle. A sight of papers may be demanded, 
 and papers may be produced. But it is known that slave trad- 
 ers carry false papers, and different sets of papers. A search 
 for other papers, then, must be made where suspicion justifies 
 it, or else the whole proceeding would be nugatory. In sus- 
 picious cases, the language and general appearance of the crew 
 are among the means of ascertaining the national character of 
 the vessel. The cargo on board, also, often indicates the coun- 
 try from which she comes. Her log-book, showing the previ- 
 ous course and events of her voyage, her internal fitment and 
 equipment, are all evidences for her, or against her, on her al- 
 
168 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 lef^ation of character. These matters, it is obvious, can only 
 be" ascertained by rigorous search. 
 
 It may be asked, if a vessel may not be called on to show 
 her papers, why does she carry papers? No doubt she may 
 be called on to show her papers ; but the question is, where, 
 when, and by whom ? Not in time of peace, on the high seas, 
 where her rights are equal to the rights of any other vessel, and 
 where none has a right to molest her. The use of her papers is, 
 in time of war, to prove her neutrality when visited by belliger- 
 ent cruisers ; and in both peace and war, to show her national 
 character, and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports of 
 other countries to which she may proceed for purposes of trade. 
 
 It appears to the government of the United States that the 
 view of this whole subject which is the most naturally taken is 
 also the most legal, and most in analogy with other cases. 
 British cruisers have a right to detain British merchantmen for 
 certain purposes ; and they have a right, acquired by treaty, 
 to detain merchant vessels of several other nations for the same 
 purposes. But they have no right at all to detain an American 
 merchant vessel. This Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest 
 manner. Any detention of an American vessel by a British 
 cruiser is therefore a wrong — a trespass ; although it may be 
 done under the belief that she was a British vessel, or that she 
 belonged to a nation which had conceded the right of such de- 
 tention to the British cruisers, and the trespass therefore an in- 
 voluntary trespass. If a ship of war, in thick weather, or in 
 the darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel, 
 under the belief that she is an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass 
 — a mere wrong; and can not be said to be an act done under 
 any right, accompanied by responsibiUty for damages. So if a 
 civil officer on land have process against one individual, and 
 through mistake arrest another, this arrest is wholly tortious : 
 no one would think of saying that it was done under any law- 
 ful exercise of authority, subject only to responsibility, or that 
 it was any thing but a mere trespass, though an unintentional 
 trespass. The municipal law does not undertake to lay down 
 beforehand any rule for the government of such cases ; and as 
 little, in the opinion of the government of the United States, 
 does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule 
 for the government of cases of involuntary trespasses, deten- 
 tions, and injuries at sea ; except that in both classes of cases 
 law and reason make a distinction between injuries committed 
 through mistake and injuries committed by design : the former 
 being entitled to fair and just compensation — the latter demand- 
 ing exemplary damages, and sometimes personal punishment. 
 The government of the United States has frequently made 
 known its opinion, which it now repeats, that the practice of 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 169 
 
 detaining American vessels, though subject to just compensa- 
 tion, if such detention afterward turn out to have been without 
 good cause, however guarded by instructions, or however cau- 
 tiously exercised, necessarily leads to serious inconvenience 
 and injury. The amount of loss can not be always well as- 
 certained. Compensation, if it be adequate in the amount, may 
 still necessarily be long delayed; and the pendency of such 
 claims always proves troublesome to the governments of both 
 countries. These detentions, too, frequently irritate individu- 
 als, cause warm blood, and produce nothing but ill effects on 
 the amicable relations existing between the countries. We 
 wish, therefore, to put an end to them, and to avoid all occa- 
 sions for their recurrence. 
 
 On the whole, the government of the United States, while it 
 has not conceded a mutual right of visit or search, as has been 
 done by the parties to the quintuple treaty of December, 1841, 
 does not admit that, by the law and practice of nations, there 
 is any such thing as a right of visit, distinguished by well-known 
 rules and definitions from the right of search. 
 
 It does not admit that visit of American merchant vessels by 
 British cruisers is founded on any right, notwithstanding the 
 cruiser may suppose such vessel to be British, Brazilian, or 
 Portuguese. We can not but see that the detention and exam- 
 ination of American vessels by British cruisers has already led 
 to consequences — and fear that, if continued, it would still lead 
 to further consequences — highly injurious to the lawful com- 
 merce of the United States. 
 
 At the same time, the government of the United States fully 
 admits that its flag can give no immunity to pirates, nor to any 
 other than to regularly documented American vessels. It was 
 upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction 
 of the truth of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the 
 duties contained in the Treaty of Washington ; in the hope that 
 thereby causes of difficulty and of difference might be altogeth- 
 er removed, and that the two powers might be enabled to act 
 concurrently, cordially, and effectually for the suppression of 
 a traffic which both regard as a reproach upon the civilization 
 of the age, and at war with every principle of humanity and 
 every Christian sentiment. 
 
 The government of the United States has no interest, nor 
 is it under the influence of any opinions, which should lead it 
 to desire any derogation of the just authority and rights of 
 maritime power. But in the convictions which it entertains, 
 and in the measures which it has adopted, it has been govern- 
 ed solely by a sincere desire to support those principles and 
 those practices which it believes to be conformable to public 
 law, and favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. 
 
170 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 - Both houses of Congress, with a remarkable degree of una- 
 nimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect 
 the 8th article of the treaty. An American squadron will im- 
 mediately proceed to the coast of Africa. Instructions for its 
 commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will 
 be furnished to the British government ; and the President 
 confidently believes that the cordial concurrence of the two 
 governments, in the mode agreed on, will be more effectual 
 than any efforts yet made for the suppression of the slave trade. 
 
 You will read this dispatch to Lord Aberdeen, and, if he de- 
 sire it, give him a copy. I am, sir, &c., &c., 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Edward Everett, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, February 15, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have not heretofore considered it necessary to write 
 you officially respecting the state of affairs here having rela- 
 tion to the question of the right of search depending between 
 the American and British governments. But though no direct 
 diplomatic action seemed advisable till recently, I did not the 
 less observe the progress of events, nor neglect, by proper con- 
 versations and explanations with those who, from their posi- 
 tion, influenced them, to convey a just notion of the subject, in 
 its relation not only to the United States, but to all other mar- 
 itime powers who do not seek the supremacy of the seas ; and 
 I have the satisfaction to believe that my exertions were not 
 wholly useless, either with respect to public opinion or to public 
 measures. I have kept you informed, in my private communi- 
 cations, of the progress of affairs, as well as of my own course 
 of unofficial action ; and I have transmitted, also, such of the 
 French journals as seemed, in addition to the other informa- 
 tion, best calculated to convey to you a correct idea of the 
 state of affairs here, and of public feeling. 
 
 But I have just taken a step which renders necessary a full 
 and free report of the condition of things here, and of the rea- 
 sons which have led me to adopt this measure. My letter of 
 the 13th instant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (a copy of 
 which I inclose) will make known to you my general senti- 
 ments concerning the relation in which we are placed with the 
 French government by the signature of the quintuple treaty for 
 the suppression of the slave trade, and by the declarations of 
 Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen concerning the measures 
 which they claim to be indispensable to its execution. I need 
 add nothing upon this subject. 
 
 I hesitated, at first, respecting the true course to be adopted. 
 That it was proper to bring officially to the notice of the French 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 171 
 
 government the declaration of that of Great Britain — that the 
 conclusion of these treaties created an obligation and conferred 
 a right to violate the flag of the United States — I did not en- 
 tertain a doubt. What was true of the duty of one of the par- 
 ties was true of the duty of each of them. Either, therefore, 
 the claim of Great Britain was well-founded, and, in that event, 
 the government of France was about to contract new obliga- 
 tions, which might bring it into collision with the United States 
 — a result I was certain it did not contemplate — or the claim 
 was unjust, and, in that event, the treaty was about to.be made 
 the pretext of a direct attack upon our rights and honor by one 
 of the parties, assuming to be governed by the obligations it 
 had contracted toward the other associated powers ; a state 
 of things which gave us a right to call upon them to disavow 
 such pretensions, and either to withdraw from an arrangement 
 which was becoming so menacing to us, or to declare, by a 
 solemn act, that it was not susceptible of such a construction, 
 and should not, with their consent, be employed for such a pur- 
 pose. My first impression was, to present a formal protest 
 against the ratification of the treaty ; but, considering that I 
 had no instructions to take so decided a measure, and that it 
 would be more respectful to the French government (of whose 
 friendly disposition to the United States 1 have had numerous 
 evidences), and probably quite as useful, to state generally the 
 bearing of the whole matter upon the United States, without 
 claiming any specific action, I finally determined to take this 
 course, and the letter to M. Guizot is the consequence. 
 
 I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon this gen- 
 eral subject, which may not be useless in the consideration 
 which the government will necessarily give to it. For some 
 years the English journals have, with much art, turned the 
 public attention of Europe from the great question of maritime 
 right and of the freedom of the seas, involved in our discussions 
 with Great Britain, connected with the measures to be adopted 
 for the suppression of the slave trade, and directed it to that 
 infamous traffic, sometimes asserting, and sometimes insinua- 
 ting, that our opposition to the co-operation their government 
 proposed originated in the miserable motive of profit — the prof- 
 it to be derived from the most wretched of all commerce. But, 
 thanks to the progress of truth, our case is now well under- 
 stood upon the continent of Europe ; and, as in all sudden re- 
 actions where injustice has been unwillingly done, the public 
 sentiment here and elsewhere is setting sti'ongly in our favor. 
 The question has not again been presented in either of the 
 chambers; but the indications in the journals, and in all socie- 
 ties, are too clear to be misunderstood. 
 
 Circumstances have placed us in a position which, if firmly 
 
172 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 maintained, will be equally honorable to ourselves, and useful 
 to all other powers interested in the freedom of the seas. De- 
 pend upon it, we have reached one of those epochs in the prog- 
 ress of a nation to which history looks back, if not as decisive 
 of its destiny, at all events as influencing it, and as controlling 
 its character and its conduct for a long series of years. En- 
 gland has advanced a pretension which we can never submit 
 to without dishonor ; and, in its enunciation, she has spared 
 our pride as little as our rights. On the 27th of August, 1841, 
 she avows the determination, and claims the right, to search 
 our ships; and this interpolation into the law of nations is ad- 
 vanced with a coolness which might well surprise us, if any 
 thing could surprise us, in the march of human ambition. 
 
 The pretension is not put forth as a debatable point, to be 
 discussed between the two governments, and to be settled 
 in a mutual spirit of amity. But Lord Palmerston distinctly 
 tells us that the exemption of the vessels of the United States 
 from search is a doctrine to which the British government 
 never can nor will subscribe. And he adds, with a rare 
 comity indeed, that he hopes the day is not far distant when 
 the government of the United States will cease to confound 
 two things which are in their nature entirely different — will 
 look to things, and not to words — and, becoming wiser from the 
 lessons thus taught, will suflTer the British cruisers to search 
 their vessels at all times and in all places, and content them- 
 selves with calling it a visit ! For myself, I see no mutual con- 
 cession by which the parties may be brought together. A 
 contested territory may be divided, and a claim for pecuniary 
 injury may be reduced and satisfied, but we can not divide a 
 great principle — one of the attributes of our independence — 
 nor reduce the sphere of its operation. We can only demand 
 its inviolability with its just consequences. Under these cir- 
 cumstances, the first question is, if we shall yield ; and that 
 being answered in the negative, as I am satisfied it will be by 
 the universal feeling of the country, the next is, will England 
 yield 1 It is our safer course to believe that she will not, and, 
 looking to her line of policy, that, too, is our most rational 
 course. Wherever she has planted her foot, whether on 
 marsh, moor, or mountain, under the polar circles as under 
 the tropics, I will not say never — that word does not belong to 
 the deeds of war — but rarely has she voluntarily withdrawn it. 
 Whenever she has asserted a pretension, she has adhered to it 
 through evil report and through good report, in prosperity and 
 in adversity, with an iron will and with a firm hand, of which the 
 history of the world furnishes, perhaps, no equal example since 
 the proudest days of the Roman empire. In this consistency of 
 purpose, and in the excess even of patriotism which ministers 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 173 
 
 to it, there is something noble and imposing ; and I am among 
 the last to deny the beautiful traits of the English character, or 
 the benefits which England has rendered to the world by her 
 example and her efforts. But she is not the less dangerous in 
 her schemes of ambition from these redeeming considerations ; 
 and the time has come when we must look her designs in the 
 face, and determine to resist or to yield. War is a great evil ; 
 but there are evils greater than war, and among these is na- 
 tional degradation. This we have never yet experienced, and 
 I trust we never shall. If Lord Ashburton goes out with such 
 modified propositions upon the various questions now pending 
 between the two governments as you can honorably accept, 
 the result will be a subject of lasting gratification to our coun- 
 try ; and more particularly if, as I trust, before entering into 
 any discussions, he is prepared to give such explanations as 
 will show that we have misunderstood the intentions of the 
 British government respecting this claim of a right to change 
 the law of nations in order to accommodate it to their treaty 
 stipulations, and its practical consequence — a claim to enter 
 and search our vessels at all times and in all places. This 
 preliminary proceeding would be worthy of the gravity of the 
 circumstances, and equally honorable to both governments. It 
 seems to me it is due to us. I allude to it in this connection 
 because the subject now necessarily presents itself to the 
 French government, and because I feel confident that they are 
 not prepared to support the pretensions of Great Britain. 
 
 We have already given one memorable example of modera- 
 tion to the world in the rejection of a unanimous application 
 from a neighboring people for admission into our confederacy; 
 and this, too, of a territory among the most fertile and valua- 
 ble upon the face of the earth, and destined to become our ri- 
 val in the production of some of our richest staple articles. 
 When accused of ambition, w^e may point to this proof of self- 
 denial, and challenge an equal instance of its exercise. It is a 
 fact worth volumes of professions of disinterestedness, and of 
 disclaimers of all desire of self-aggrandizement. 
 
 It is not to be disguised that the quintuple treaty for the sup- 
 pression of the slave trade was intended to act upon the Unit- 
 ed States by its moral force. As to France and England, their 
 co-operation in the necessary measures for the abolition of that 
 traffic was already secured by the treaties of 1831 and 1833; 
 and as to Prussia, Russia, and Austria, I suppose neither of 
 them ever had, or ever will have, a vessel engaged in that 
 commerce. But it was hoped, certainly by one of the parties, 
 that this great combination would either induce the United 
 States to follow their example, and submit themselves to the 
 measures indicated, or that it would lead to the establishment 
 
174 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of some new principles of maritime law without them. But 
 the subject is now so well understood that we have little to 
 fear from this great combination, so long sought and so highly 
 applauded. Its moral force, as the " Journal des Debats" just- 
 ly observes, is gone. The discussion in the Chamber of Dep- 
 uties, and the almost unanimous condemnation of the treaty, 
 will have indicated to you the true state of feeling here, and 
 you will not fail to appreciate the importance of the emphatic 
 declaration of Mr. Guizot, during the debates, that the Ameri- 
 cans were right, and that France, in the same circumstances, 
 would do the same thing The value of this testimonial to the 
 justice of our course, made by such a statesman, in the face 
 of Europe, can hardly be overrated. 
 
 Our true policy is to discourage all great combinations hav- 
 ing for their object the regulation of maritime principles and 
 police. European confederations for the regulation of Euro- 
 pean questions do not come within the sphere of our policy, as 
 they touch neither our rights nor our interests. But when 
 these powers extend their care and their jurisdiction over the 
 ocean, I think the time has arrived for us to make ourselves 
 heard. No nation is more interested than we are in the free- 
 dom of commerce, and we do not advance a single pretension 
 which can give just cause of umbrage to any other country. 
 If, indeed, a general congress of nations could be assembled, 
 where all might be represented, the weak as well as the strong, 
 then we might fairly take our place there and recognize its de- 
 cisions as obligatory. But this is a measure so doubtful in it- 
 self, as well as in its consequences, that it is our interest, as it 
 is the interest of all people who do not conceal any projects of 
 aggrandizement in a professed desire to meliorate the maritime 
 code of nations, to adhere to that code as they find it. This 
 adherence to the established state of things is certainly not in- 
 consistent with any arrangement which two nations may be 
 disposed to make for a single purpose and for a limited time, 
 to which they may be impelled by considerations of general 
 benevolence. Certainly, if Great Britain and the United States 
 choose to restrain their citizens from any traffic condemned by 
 moral considerations, and to regulate their joint action upon 
 the subject, they may do so without subjecting themselves to 
 any imputations of interested or ambitious motives. Each 
 must judge for itself whether such a combined movement is in 
 accordance with its policy or with the nature of its institutions. 
 Both may agree to keep squadrons upon the coast of Africa to 
 suppress the slave trade, and upon the coast of China to sup- 
 press the opium trade ; branches of commerce destructive of 
 human life and happiness — the latter of which has the advant- 
 age of being prohibited by the government of China, and the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 175 
 
 disadvantage, if we can credit but a small part of the state- 
 ments of that government, of being far more injurious in its op- 
 eration than the former. But these mutual agreements, dicta- 
 ted bv the most charitable motives, would act merely upon the 
 citizens of the respective countries executing them, without 
 overawing others by their imposing form, and without leading 
 to the establishment of any new principle of maritime law. 
 
 Nothing can explain to us more clearly the danger of these 
 great combinations, if it does not reveal the object of one or 
 more of the parties in their establishment, than the principle, 
 so frankly developed by Lord Aberdeen, that this " happy con- 
 currence" creates new duties and obligations, before whose 
 justice and necessity the law of nations gives way, and to which 
 the interests and independence of nations are sacrificed. 1 
 was, therefore, much pleased to read, in the message of the 
 President of the United States to Congress at the commence- 
 ment of the present session, his emphatic declaration that the 
 United States would not submit to any such pretension. The 
 powers of Europe, strong or weak, must understand, if neces- 
 sary, that our country, in taking her place in the family of na- 
 tions, took it with the same rights as the greatest of them, and 
 there will maintain it unmoved by any confederation which 
 may be formed, and wholly without the sphere of its opera- 
 tions. 
 
 The quintuple treaty has not yet been ratified by France, 
 nor will it be, I think, without some essential alterations. It is 
 understood that the English government are much dissatisfied 
 at this determination. The queen's speech, however, at the 
 opening of the session, and Sir Robert Peel's remarks last 
 week, in answer to a question of Lord Palmerston, seem to 
 take for granted the French ratification. But, certainly, when 
 the British premier made those remarks, he knew the discus- 
 sion in the Chamber of Deputies and the state of public opin- 
 ion here, and he ought to have known that a constitutional min- 
 istry would hesitate before they would incur the responsibility 
 of such an act. 
 
 I observe that Lord Palmerston, in the remarks prefatory to 
 his question, dwells upon the disinterestedness of his country and 
 of the other parties to this treaty. This is the old topic of eulo- 
 gy for England, as its reverse is intended to be of reproach for 
 us. But its day has gone by. Europe fully understands the sub- 
 ject ; and in public as in private life, it is not the most disinter- 
 ested who are always avowing the purity of their intentions. 
 One would think there were objects of misery enough at home 
 to occupy the attention of any English statesman, without that 
 excess of philanthropy which would tilt a spear at every na- 
 tion, and light up the flames of a general war, in order to ac- 
 
170 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 complish its own charitable views in its own exclusive way, 
 almost at the end of the world. It brings forcibly to recollec- 
 tion one of the vagaries of Rousseau, that there are people who 
 love those who are placed at the extremities of the earth, in 
 order to excuse themselves for not loving their own neighbors. 
 
 In all that precedes, I believe, there is not a word which, if 
 need be, would not be re-echoed by every American citizen in 
 Paris. We are here in the midst of stirring circumstances, 
 and can form a safe judgment of the dangers which menace 
 us. If England pushes her purpose into action, we shall have 
 a severe struggle to encounter ; and the sooner and the more 
 vigorously we prepare for it, the better. If she does not, we 
 shall gain by our exhibition of firmness ; and the very state of 
 preparations may lead her to recede. But permit me to press 
 upon you the necessity of instant and extensive arrangements 
 for offensive and defensive war. All other questions, person- 
 al, local, and political, should give way before this paramount 
 duty. England has fearful means of aggression. No man 
 can yet tell the effect which the use of steam is to produce 
 upon great warlike operations ; and, with her accustomed sa- 
 gacity, she has accumulated a large force of steam-vessels. A 
 hostile squadron might at any time carry to the United States 
 the first news of war. And it would not be a war like the last 
 one, conducted in many cases by incompetent officers, and fee- 
 bly prosecuted ; but she would put forth her utmost strength, 
 and she would be felt, and ought to be met at every assailable 
 point. I can not but hope that the excellent suggestions of the 
 Secretaries of War and of the Navy respecting national de- 
 fense may find general support. 
 
 You may naturally think that this is not a very diplomatic 
 dispatch. It is not so, certainly, so far as diplomacy consists 
 in mystery, either of thought or expression. I have felt strong- 
 ly, and I have attempted to speak plainly. I do not belong to 
 the school of that well-known French statesman who said that 
 language was given to conceal thoughts. If necessary, I must 
 claim your indulgence for my candor in consideration of my 
 motives. I see the difficult position of my country, and most 
 anxious am I that it should be seen and appreciated at home. 
 That done, I have no fear for the result. If the sentiments I 
 have expressed are not those of the government and people of 
 my country, then I have lived a stirring life, and mixed with 
 my countrymen in every situation, without having learned the 
 American character. 
 
 You will perceive that in my letter to M Guizot I have 
 taken upon myself the responsibility of my interposition. Your 
 course is perfectly free to avow or disavow my conduct. The 
 President will decide as the public interest requires. I do not 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 177 
 
 shut my eyes to the gravity of the circumstances in which I 
 am placed. In the unforeseen emergency which presents it- 
 self, I have pursued the course that appeared to me to be dic- 
 tated by the honor and interest of our country, and I have the 
 satisfaction to believe that my measures will not be wholly 
 without beneficial results. It is now for the government to 
 judge what is its own duty, and to determine whether my con- 
 duct shall be approved or disapproved, 
 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE.] 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, February 13, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The recent signature of a treaty, having for its object 
 the suppression of the African slave trade, by five of the pow- 
 ers of Europe, and to which France is a party, is a fact of such 
 general notoriety that it may be assumed as the basis of any 
 diplomatic representations which the subject may fairly require. 
 
 The United States, being no party to this treaty, have no 
 right to inquire into the circumstances which have led to it, 
 nor into the measures it proposes to adopt, except so far as 
 they have reason to believe that their rights may be involved 
 in the course of its execution. Their own desire to put a stop 
 to this traffic is every where known, as well as the early and 
 continued efforts they have adopted to prevent their citizens 
 from prosecuting it. They have been invited by the govern- 
 ment of Great Britain to become a party to the treaty, which 
 should regulate the action of the combined governments upon 
 the subject. But, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, and 
 I believe satisfactory to the world, they have declined this 
 united action, and have chosen to pursue their own measures, 
 and to act upon their own citizens only, without subjecting 
 these to any kind of foreign jurisdiction. 
 
 In a communication from Lord Palmerston, her Britannic 
 majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to 
 Mr. Stevenson, the American minister at London, dated the 
 27th of August, 1841, Lord Palmerston claims a right for the 
 British cruisers, and avows the intention of his government to 
 exercise it, to search American vessels at sea in time of peace, 
 with a view to ascertain their national character. He adds, 
 that " this examination of papers of merchantmen suspected of 
 being engaged in the slave trade, even though they hoist a 
 United States flag, is a proceeding which it is absolutely nec- 
 essary that British cruisers employed in the suppression of the 
 slave trade should continue to practice," &c., &c. 
 
 In a communication from the successor of Lord Aberdeen to 
 Mr. Stevenson, dated October 13, 1841, the views and determ- 
 
 M 
 
178 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ination announced in the first are confirmed ; and Lord Aber- 
 deen thus states the ground upon which rests this pretension 
 to search American vessels in time of peace : " But the under- 
 signed must observe, that the present happy concurrence of the 
 states of Christendom in this great object (the suppression of 
 the slave trade) not merely justifies, but renders indispensable, 
 the right now claimed and exercised by the British govern- 
 ment ;" that is to say, the right of entering and examining 
 American vessels, to ascertain their nationality. 
 
 It is no part of my duty to offer any comments upon this 
 pretension, nor upon the reasons advanced in support of it ; and 
 if it were, I should find the duty far better performed for me 
 than I could perform it for myself, in the annual message of the 
 [President of the] United States to Congress of December 7, 
 1841. In that document will be found the views of the Amer- 
 ican government upon this subject ; and it is there emphatical- 
 ly declared that, " however desirous the United States may be 
 for the suppression of the slave trade, they can not consent to 
 interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and pleas- 
 ure of other governments. We deny the right of any such in- 
 terpolation to any one or all the nations of the earth, without our 
 consent. We claim to have a voice in all amendments or al- 
 terations of that code ; and when we are given to understand, 
 as in this instance, by a foreign government that its treaties 
 with other nations can not be executed without the establish- 
 ment and enforcement of new principles of maritime police, to 
 be applied without our consent, we must employ language nei- 
 ther of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction." 
 
 You will perceive, sir, by these extracts, that the British 
 government has advanced a pretension which it asserts to be 
 indispensable to the execution of its treaties for the suppression 
 of the slave trade, and to which the President of the United 
 States has declared that the American government will not 
 submit. This claim of search, it will be observed, arising, as 
 is asserted, out of existing obligations, has relation to the iso- 
 lated treaties for the abolition of this traffic which were in 
 force at the date of the communications of Lord Palmerston 
 and of Lord Aberdeen. It is now known that the combined 
 treaty upon this subject is more extensive in its operations, and 
 more minute in some of the details of its execution, than the 
 separate treaties with France which preceded it, and equally 
 indefinite in the duration of its obligations. Of course, meas- 
 ures which were not only "justifiable, but indispensable" for the 
 execution of the latter, will find equal justice and necessity in 
 the obligations of the former. 
 
 With this previous declaration made by one of the parties 
 to this quintuple treaty concerning its operations, the Ameri- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 179 
 
 can government can not shut their eyes to their true position. 
 The moral effect which such a union of five great powers, two 
 of which ai'e eminently maritime, but three of which have, per- 
 haps, never had a vessel engaged in that traffic, is calculated 
 to produce upon the United States, and upon other nations 
 who, like them, may be indisposed to these combined move- 
 ments, though it may be regretted, yet furnishes no just cause 
 of complaint. But the subject assumes another aspect when 
 they are told by one of the parties that their vessels are to be 
 forcibly entered and examined, in order to carry into effect 
 these stipulations. Certainly the American government does 
 not believe that the high powers, contracting parties to this 
 treaty, have any wish to compel the United States, by force, 
 to adopt their measures to its provisions, or to adopt its stipu- 
 lations. They have too much confidence in their sense of jus- 
 tice to fear any such result ; and they will see with pleasure 
 the prompt disavowal made by yourself, sir, in the name of 
 your country, at the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies, of 
 any intentions of this nature. But were it otherwise, and were 
 it possible they might be deceived in this confident expecta- 
 tion, that would not alter in one tittle their course of action ; 
 their duty would be the same, and the same would be their de- 
 termination to fulfill it. They would prepare themselves with 
 apprehension, indeed, but without dismay — with regret, but 
 with firmness — for one of those desperate struggles which have 
 sometimes occurred in the history of the world, but where a 
 just cause and the favor of Providence have given strength to 
 comparative weakness, and enabled it to break down the pride 
 of power. 
 
 But I have already said that the United States do not fear 
 that any such united attempt will be made upon their inde- 
 pendence. What, however, they may reasonably fear, and 
 what they do fear, is, that in the execution of this treaty meas- 
 ures will be taken which they must resist. How far the act 
 of one of the parties putting its construction upon its own du- 
 ties, and upon the obligations of its co-contractors, may involve 
 these in any unlooked-for consequences, either by the adoption 
 of similar measures or by their rejection, I do not presume to 
 judge. Certain it is, however, that if the fact, and the princi- 
 ple advanced by Lord Aberdeen, are correct, that these treat- 
 ies for the abolition of the slave trade can not be executed 
 without forcibly boarding American ships at sea in time of 
 peace, and that the obligations created by them confer not only 
 the right thus to violate the American flag, but make this meas- 
 ure a duty, then it is also the duty of France to pursue the 
 same course. Should she put this construction upon her obli- 
 gations, it is obvious the United States must do to her as they 
 
180 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 will do to England if she persists in this attack upon their in- 
 dependence. Should she not, it does not become me to inves- 
 tigate the nature of her position with respect to one of her as- 
 sociates, whose opinion respecting their relative duties would 
 be so widely different from her own. But I may express the 
 hope that the government of his majesty, before ratifying this 
 treaty, will examine maturely the pretensions asserted by one 
 of the parties, and see how these can be reconciled not only 
 with the honor and interest of the United States, but with the 
 received principles of the great maritime code of nations. I 
 may make this appeal with the more confidence from the rela- 
 tions subsisting between France and the United States, from a 
 community of interest in the liberty of the seas, from a com- 
 munity of opinion respecting the principles which guard it, and 
 from a community in danger should it ever be menaced by the 
 ambition of any maritime power. 
 
 It appears to me, sir, that in asking the attention of his maj- 
 esty's government to the subject of the quintuple treaty, with 
 a view to its reconsideration, I am requesting nothing on the 
 part of the United States inconsistent with the duties of France 
 to other powers. If, during the course of the discussions upon 
 this treaty, preparatory to the arrangement of its provisions, 
 England had asserted to the other parties the pretension she 
 now asserts to the United States, as a necessary consequence 
 of its obligations, I can not be wrong in presuming that France 
 would not have signed it without guarding against this impend- 
 ing difficulty. The views of England are now disclosed to you, 
 but fortunately before its ratification. And this change of cir- 
 cumstances may w^ell justify the French government in inter- 
 posing such a remedy as it may think is demanded by the grave 
 interests involved in this question. 
 
 As to the treaties of 1831 and 1833, between France and 
 Great Britain, for the suppression of the slave trade, I do not 
 consider it my duty to advert to their stipulations. Their obli- 
 gations upon the contracting parties, whatever these may be, 
 are now complete ; and it is for my government alone to de- 
 termine what measures the United Slates ought to take to avert 
 the consequences with which they are threatened by the con- 
 struction which one of the parties has given to these instru- 
 ments. 
 
 I have the honor to transmit, herewith, a copy of the Mes- 
 sage of the President of the United States to Congress, in 
 December last, and of the annual documents which accom- 
 panied it. Among the latter will be found the correspondence 
 between the British Secretaries of State and Mr. Stevenson 
 upon the subject herein referred to. From these you will learn 
 the respective views of the American and British governments. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 181 
 
 It is proper for me to add that this communication has been 
 made without any instructions from the United States. I have 
 considered this case as one in which an American representa- 
 tive to a foreign power should act without awaiting the orders 
 of his government. I have presumed, in the views I have sub- 
 mitted to you, that I express the feehngs of the American gov- 
 ernment and people. If in this I have deceived myself, the re- 
 sponsibility will be mine. As soon as I can receive dispatches 
 from the United States in answer to my communications, I shall 
 be enabled to declare to you either that my conduct has been 
 approved by the President, or that my mission is terminated. 
 I avail myself, &c. Lewis Cass. 
 
 His Excellency M. Guizot, Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, April 5, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — By the arrival of the steam-packet at Boston, on the 
 27th day of last month, I had the honor to receive your several 
 dispatches down to the 2Gth of February. That vessel had 
 been so long delayed on the passage to America that, after the 
 receipt here of the communications brought by her, there was 
 not time to prepare answers in season to reach Boston before 
 the time fixed for her departure on her return. The most I 
 was able to do was to write a short note to Mr. Everett, to 
 signify that the mail from London had come safe to hand. 
 
 The President has been closely attentive to recent occur- 
 rences in Europe connected with the treaty of the five powers, 
 of which we received a copy soon after its signature in Decem- 
 ber. He has witnessed with especial interest the sentiments 
 to which that treaty appears to have given rise in France, as 
 manifested by the debates in the Chambers and the publication 
 of the Parisian press ; and he is now officially informed of the 
 course which you felt it to be your duty to take, by the receipt 
 of a copy of the letter addressed by you to M. Guizot on the 
 13th of February. 
 
 When the President entered upon the duties of his present 
 office in April of last year, a correspondence, as you know, 
 had been long pending, and was still pending, in London, be- 
 tw^een the minister of the United States and her Britannic maj- 
 esty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, respecting cer- 
 tain seizures and detentions of American vessels on the coast 
 of Africa by armed British cruisers, and, generally, respecting 
 the visitation and search of American vessels by such cruisers 
 in those seas. A general approbation of Mr. Stevenson's note 
 to the British minister in regard to this subject was soon after 
 communicated to that gentleman, by the President's order, from 
 this department. The state of things in England in the early 
 
182 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 part of last summer did not appear to favor a very active con- 
 tinuance or prosecution of this correspondence ; and, as Mr. 
 Stevenson had already received permission to return home, no 
 new instructions were addressed to him. 
 
 Circumstances occurred, as you are aware, which delayed 
 Mr. Everett's arrival at the post assigned to him as minister to 
 London ; and, in the mean time, in the latter part of August 
 the correspondence between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Steven- 
 son was, somewhat unexpectedly, resumed afresh, not only on 
 the subject of the African seizures, but on other subjects. 
 
 Mr. Everett arrived in London only in the latter part of 
 November; and, in fact, was not presented to the queen until 
 the IGth day of December. While we were waiting to hear 
 of his appearance at his post, the session of Congress was fast 
 approaching ; and, under these circumstances, the President 
 felt it to be his duty to announce, publicly and solemnly, the prin- 
 ciples by which the government would be conducted in regard 
 to the visitation and search of ships at sea. As one of the 
 most considerable, commercial, and maritime states of the 
 world, as interested in whatever may in any degree endanger 
 or threaten the common independence of nations upon the seas, 
 it was fit that this government should avow the sentiments 
 which it has heretotbre always maintained, and from which it 
 can not under any circumstances depart. You are quite too 
 well acquainted with the language of the message, on which 
 your letter is bottomed, to need its recital here. It expresses 
 what we consider the true American doctrine, and that which 
 will, therefore, govern us in all future negotiations on the subject. 
 
 While instructions for Mr. Everett were in the course of 
 preparation, signifying to him in what manner it might be 
 practicable to preserve the peace of the country consistently 
 with the principles of the message, and yet so as to enable the 
 government to fulfill all its duties, and meet its own wishes and 
 the wishes of the people of the United States, in regard to the 
 suppression of the African slave trade, it was announced that 
 the English government had appointed Lord Ashburton as spe- 
 cial minister to this country, fully authorized to treat of and 
 definitely settle all matters in difference between the two coun- 
 tries. Of course, no instructions were forwarded to Mr. Ev- 
 erett respecting any of those matters. You perceive, then, that 
 up to the present moment we rest upon the sentiments of the 
 message : beyond the fair scope and purport of that document 
 we are not committed on the one hand nor on the other. We 
 reserve to ourselves the undiminished right to receive or to offer 
 propositions on the delicate subjects embraced in the treaty of 
 the five powers, to negotiate tlureupon as we may be advised, 
 never departing from our principles, but desirous, while we 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 183 
 
 carefully maintain all our rights to the fullest extent, of fulfilling 
 our duties also as one of the maritime states of the world. 
 
 The President considers your letter to M. Guizot to have 
 been founded, as it purports, upon the message dehvered by 
 him at the opening of the present session of Congress ; as in- 
 tending to give assurance to the French government that the 
 principles of that message would be adhered to, and that the 
 government of the United States would regret to see other 
 nations, especially France, an old ally of the United States 
 and a distinguished champion of the liberty of the seas, agree 
 to any arrangement between other states which might, in its 
 influences, produce effects unfavorable to this country, and to 
 which arrangement, therefore, this country itself might not be 
 able to accede. 
 
 The President directs me to say that he approves your letter, 
 and warmly commends the motives which animated you in 
 presenting it. The whole subject is now before us here, or will 
 be shortly, as Lord Ashburton arrived last evening ; and, with- 
 out intending to intimate at present what modes of settling this 
 point of difference with England will be proposed, you may 
 receive two propositions as certain : 
 
 1st. That, in the absence of treaty stipulations, the United 
 States will maintain the immunity of merchant vessels on the 
 seas, to the fullest extent which the law of nations authorizes. 
 
 2d. That if the government of the United States, animated 
 by a sincere desire to put an end to the African slave trade, 
 shall be induced to enter into treaty stipulations for that pur- 
 pose with any foreign power, those stipulations will be such as 
 shall be strictly limited to their true and single object, such as 
 shall not be embarrassing to innocent commerce, and such, espe- 
 cially, as shall neither imply any inequality, nor can tend in any 
 way to establish such inequality, in their practical operations. 
 
 You are requested to communicate these sentiments to M. 
 Guizot, at the same time that you signify to him the President's 
 approbation of your letter ; and are requested to add an ex- 
 pression of the sincere pleasure which it gives the President to 
 see the constant sensibility of the French government to the 
 maintenance of the great principles of national equality upon 
 the ocean. Truly sympathizing with that government in ab- 
 horrence of the African slave trade, he appreciates the high 
 motives and the comprehensive views of the true, permanent 
 interest of mankind, wliich induces it to act with great caution, 
 in giving its sanction to a measure susceptible of interpreta- 
 tions, or of modes of execution, which might be in opposition 
 to the independence of nations and the freedom of the seas. 
 I am, &c., Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
184 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Lkgation of the United States, Paris, April 30, 1812. 
 
 Sir, — The quintuple treaty, purporting to be for the suppres- 
 sion of the slave trade, has not been ratitied by France, and the 
 manifestations of public opinion against it are so numerous and 
 decisive that it seems to be too clearly the part of true wisdom 
 to yield to them, to render it probable that that measure will 
 ever be adopted. 
 
 M. Guizothasnot answered my letter of the 13th of February, 
 and I have no expectation he will do so till the course of our 
 government upon the subject is known here. I have yet re- 
 ceived nothing from you upon the subject, but I am expect- 
 ing every day your instructions. If the President should disap- 
 prove the step I have taken, I could no longer remain here with 
 honor to myself or with advantage to our country. 
 
 I am, «fec., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webstek, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, May 17, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 dispatch of the 5th of April, and I am happy to find that the 
 course which I considered it necessary to take in relation to 
 the ratification, by France, of the quintuple treaty for the sup- 
 pression of the slave trade, has met the approbation of the 
 President. 
 
 Immediately on the receipt of your letter, I sought an inter- 
 view with M. Guizot, and, after some conversation with him, I 
 placed the letter in his hands. I thought this mode of proce- 
 dure far better than to trust myself to make a verbal statement, 
 to be afterward put in the form of an official communication 
 to him. As you instructed me to make known the sentiments 
 of the President upon the whole matter, 1 was sure I could not 
 perform this task as well as I found it performed for me ; and 
 this view was not checked by any considerations arising out 
 of the nature of the dispatch. There was nothing in it which 
 might not be seen by all the world. 
 
 M. Guizot was touched by the frankness of the proceeding, 
 and testified his gratification after the perusal of the letter. He 
 then asked for a copy of it, which I did not hesitate to promise 
 him ; and since then I have sent it ; and have thus, in my 
 opinion, in the best mode in my power, carried into effect your 
 instructions. 
 
 M. Guizot said nothing on the subject of an answer. If 
 the treaty is not ratified, as I have now the confident expecta- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 185 
 
 tion that it will not be, it is possible he may consider that the 
 occasion for an answer has passed by. 
 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, May 26, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Since my dispatch ofthe 17th instant, the question of 
 the ratification of the quintuple treaty has been discussed in 
 the Chamber of Peers and in the Chamber of Deputies, and the 
 sentiments expressed were unanimously against the measure. 
 It is now well understood that the subject is at rest in France, 
 and that no ministry will venture to recommend ratification. 
 Efforts will no doubt now be made, and I think eventually with 
 success, for the abrogation of the treaties of 1831 and 1833. 
 
 The question of the budget is a subject which, by the usage 
 of the French Chambers, allows great latitude of discussion. 
 Connected with this matter, the commercial relations between 
 France and the United States have just been warmly debated. 
 I send you the Moniteur, which contains an account of the pro- 
 ceedings. It is well worth your examination, and I think ought 
 to be translated and published for the information of the country. 
 It is lamentable to find such erroneous notions prevailing in 
 such a high place respecting the true character of the trade 
 between France and the United States. You will see that the 
 speakers complain of two grievances : first, of the navigation ; 
 and, second, of the duties proposed to be levied on foreign 
 productions imported into the United States. As to the former, 
 it is, as you know, upon a footing of perfect equality ; and as 
 to the latter, if it were, as it is not, a just subject of interference 
 for a foreign government, France is one of the last countries 
 whicli has any just right to complain. Her prohibitive system, 
 commenced so long ago as Colbert, has been continued, with 
 little relaxation, to this day. You can not fail to be struck 
 by the views advanced by most of the speakers, and the gravity 
 with which they urge reprisals against the United States. But 
 I assure you that these sentiments are general in France ; and 
 such are the exclusive views taken of these subjects by the 
 press, that it is hopeless to expect to change public opinion. 
 We have nothing to do but to pursue our own measures firmly, 
 leaving to other governments to meet them as they think proper. 
 
 As soon as I read the debate in the Moniteur, I called upon 
 M. Guizot to converse with him upon the subject. I found 
 him very reasonable, though not fully acquainted with the de- 
 tails of the matter. He says, however, that he is looking into 
 it, and that nothing will be hastily done. It is my decided 
 opinion that there is no efficient remedy for the present state 
 
186 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of things, but by a commercial treaty which shall regulate our 
 intercourse with France. I recommend that measures with 
 that view be taken without delay ; and I think the negotiations 
 can be better carried on at Washington than here. If full 
 powers and general instructions are given to the French min- 
 ister there, you may calculate with a reasonable probability 
 upon a successful termination of your efforts. He would un- 
 derstand the true state of things better than they are or can be 
 understood here. The government has too many important 
 subjects on hand, to be able to devote the proper time for the 
 acquisition of all the necessary facts which belong to this 
 subject. I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webstee, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, May 31, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to transmit herewith the copy of a 
 letter which I have received from the Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs, in answer to my letter to him of the 13th of February, 
 concerning the quintuple treaty. 
 
 I have merely said, in acknowledging the receipt of this letter, 
 that I should transmit it to my government for its information. 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 [iNCLOSURE. TRANSLATION.] 
 
 Paris, May 26, 1842. 
 
 General, — I received in due time the letter with which you 
 honored me on the 13th of February, respecting the treaty 
 signed on the 26th of December, between the plenipotentiaries 
 of France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, with the 
 object of attaining a more efficient repression of the negro 
 slave trade. You therein expressed your desii-e that the king's 
 government should not ratify this treaty ; and you at the same 
 time stated that you were about to inform your government of 
 a measure which you had thought proper to take, without 
 authorization, upon your own responsibility ; and that, as soon 
 as you should have received the approval or the disavowel of 
 your government, you would communicate it to me. 
 
 I have just received with your letter of the 3d of this month, 
 a copy of that which Mr. Webster has written to you, an- 
 nouncing the approval by the President of your dispatch of 
 the 13th of February ; and as that dispatch has thus acquired an 
 official character, which it did not before possess, I conceive 
 that I should no longer defer my answer, which would have 
 been hitherto premature. 
 
 You expressed to me, sir, your apprehension that the treaty 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 187 
 
 of December 20 might constitute, on the part of the contract- 
 ing parties, an engagement to create a new principle of inter- 
 national law, whereby the vessels even of those powers which 
 have not participated in the arrangement should be subjected 
 to the right of search, as established in its stipulations. As 
 the act in question has not been ratified by the king's govern- 
 ment, and consequently does not exist, so far as regards France, 
 at this moment, I might abstain from entering into any expla- 
 nations on the subject. But the amicable relations subsisting 
 between France and the United States make it my duty to 
 come forward and prevent all misunderstanding, by frank and 
 complete explanations; moreover, we have always been actu- 
 ated in this matter by intentions too correct and honest (droites 
 et loyales) for us not to embrace with eagerness an opportu- 
 nity to exhibit them to the world. 
 
 It is not my part to examine the value of the deductions, with 
 regard to the private views of the cabinet of London, which you 
 draw from certain passages of the dispatches written by Lord 
 Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, but I shall not 
 hesitate to say what was the idea of the king's government upon 
 the serious question which you raise. The treaty of December 
 20, 1841, whatever hereafter might be its destiny, was founded 
 upon no other principles than the conventions of 1831 and 1833. 
 The stipulations of these conventions only engaged France and 
 England ; the treaty of December 20 extends them to Austria, 
 Prussia, and Russia, with some changes more or less important, 
 but not altering their nature. In order that the extraordinary 
 intention of imposing upon other states the obligation to sub- 
 mit to them should be deduced, this intention, which is in no- 
 wise indicated in the act of December 20, might be the result 
 of the anterior conventions. Never have we, never could we 
 have understood them in such a sense. 
 
 I have the less hesitation in here giving the formal, and, in my 
 opinion, entirely superfluous assurance, that the king's govern- 
 ment, on its part, places the fullest confidence in the firm reso- 
 lution so often proclaimed by the Federal government, to aid, 
 by its most sincere endeavors, in the definitive abolition of the 
 trade. The dispatch of Mr. Webster, which you do me the 
 honor to communicate to me, is of such a nature as to increase 
 this confidence. It seems to show, in fact, that the cabinet of 
 Washington foresees the probability of concluding, with the 
 states which have adhered to the right of reciprocal search for 
 the suppression of the slave trade, arrangements proper to at- 
 tain the end which they propose. 
 
 We should attach the more value to this concurrence of 
 views from the circumstance that, while it would hasten the en- 
 tire destruction of the slave trade, it would have the effect, by 
 
188 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 placing all governments in the same situation as regards the 
 measures adopted for the suppression, to give to the maritime 
 laws, and the commercial activity of all nations, guarantees of 
 security which it would be difficult to obtain, amid the compli- 
 cations and causes of colMsion which would necessarily result 
 from opposition, or diversity of the systems. However it may 
 be, nevertheless, should this hope not be realized — should the 
 United States persist in their isolation — we have the conviction 
 that they will regard it as a sacred duty to prevent that isola- 
 tion from affording to the prosecutors of an infamous specula- 
 tion too many chances of impunity. 
 
 Accept, general, the assurance, &c., Guizot. 
 
 Geueral Cass, Envoy Extraordinary, &c. 
 
 Mr, Webster to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, August 29, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — You will see by the inclosed the result of the nego- 
 tiations lately had in this city between this department and 
 Lord Ashburton. The treaty has been ratified by the Presi- ' 
 dent and Senate. 
 
 In communicating to you this treaty, I am directed by the 
 President to draw your particular attention to those articles 
 which relate to the suppression of the African slave trade. 
 
 After full and anxious consideration of this very delicate 
 subject, the government of the United has come to the conclu- 
 sion which you will see expressed in the President's Message 
 to the Senate accompanying the treaty. 
 
 Without intending or desiring to influence the policy of other 
 governments on this important subject, this government has 
 reflected on what was due to its own character and position, as 
 the leading maritime power on the American continent, left 
 free to make choice such of means for the fulfillment of its du- 
 ties as it should deem best suited to its dignity. The result of 
 its reflections has been, that it does not concur in measures 
 which, for whatever benevolent purpose they may be adopted, 
 or with whatever care and moderation they may be exercised, 
 have yet a tendency to place the police of the seas in the hands 
 of a single power. It chooses rather to follow its own laws 
 with its own sanction, and to carry them into execution by its 
 own authority. Disposed to act in the spirit of the most cor- 
 dial concurrence with other nations for the suppression of the 
 African slave trade, that great reproach of our times, it deems 
 it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, though concurrent, 
 should be independent ; and it believes that, from this independ- 
 ence, it will derive a greater degree of efficiency. 
 
 You will perceive, however, that, in the opinion of this gov- 
 ernment, cruising against slave dealers on the coast of Africa 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 189 
 
 is not all which is necessary to be done, in order to put an end 
 to the traffic. There are markets for slaves, or the unhappy- 
 natives of Africa would not be seized, chained, and carried over 
 the ocean into slavery. These markets ought to be shut. 
 And, in the treaty now communicated to you, the high con- 
 tracting parties have stipulated "that they will unite, in all be- 
 coming representations and remonstrances, with any and all 
 powers within whose dominions such markets are allowed to 
 exist ; and that they will urge upon all such powers the pro- 
 priety and duty of closing such markets effectually at once and 
 forever." 
 
 You are furnished, then, with the American policy in regard 
 to this interesting subject. First, independent but cordially 
 concurrent efforts of maritime states to suppress, as far as pos- 
 sible, the trade on the coast, by means of competent and well 
 appointed squadrons, to watch the shores and scour the neigh- 
 boring seas. Secondly, concurrent, becoming remonstrance 
 with all governments who tolerate within their territories 
 markets for the purchase of African negroes. There is much 
 reason to believe that if other states, professing equal hostility 
 to this nefarious traffic, would give their own powerful concur- 
 rence and co-operation to these remonstrances, the general ef- 
 fect would be satisfactory, and that the cupidity and crimes of 
 individuals would at length cease to find both their temptation 
 and their reward in the bosom of Christian states, and in the 
 permission of Christian governments. 
 
 It will still remain for each government to revise, execute, 
 and make more effectual its own municipal laws against its 
 subjects or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in any way 
 give aid or countenance to others concerned in this traffic. 
 
 You are at liberty to make the contents of this dispatch 
 known to the French government. 
 
 I have, &c., Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, September 17, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The mail by the steam-packet which left Boston on 
 the 1st instant has just arrived, and has brought intelligence of 
 the ratification of the treaties recently concluded with Great 
 Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of any immediate diffi- 
 culties with that country are at an end, and I do not see that 
 any public interest demands my further residence in Europe. 
 I can no longer be useful here, and the state of my private af- 
 fairs requires my presence at home. Under these circum- 
 stances, I beg you to submit to the President my wish for per- 
 mission to retire from this mission, and to return to the United 
 
190 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 States without delay. In the hope that there will be no objec- 
 tion to this measure, I shall proceed to make my arrangements 
 to leave here about the 13th of November, so as to embark in 
 the steamer of the 19th of November. I can not delay my de- 
 parture any longer, as I am anxious to finish my voyage before 
 the winter weather. 
 
 I have, therefore, to pray you to favor me with an answer 
 by the return steam-packet, inclosing my letters of recall, and 
 authorizing me to transfer the legation to the secretary, Mr. 
 Ledyard, as charge d'affaires, till a minister can be sent out. 
 He is every way competent to discharge the duties. 
 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. DxniKi, Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, October 3, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — The last packet brought me your letter of August 29, 
 announcing the conclusion of a treaty with Great Britain, and 
 accompanied by a copy of it, and of the correspondence be- 
 tween the ministers charged with the negotiations, and direct- 
 ing me to make known to M. Guizot the sentiments of the 
 American government upon that part of the treaty which pro- 
 vides for the co-operation of the United States in the efforts 
 making to suppress the African slave trade. I thought I should 
 best fulfill your intentions by communicating a copy, in extenso, 
 of your letter. This I accordingly did yesterday. I trust I 
 shall be able, before my departure, to transmit to you the ac- 
 knowledgment of its receipt by M. Guizot. 
 
 In executing this duty, I felt too well what was due to my 
 government and country to intimate any regret to a foreign 
 power that some declaration had not preceded the treaty, or 
 some stipulation accompanied it, by which the extraordinary 
 pretension of Great Britain to search our ships at all times and 
 in all places, first put forth to the world by Lord Palmerston 
 on the 27th of August, 1841, and on the 13th of October follow- 
 ing again peremptorily claimed as a right by Lord Aberdeen, 
 would have been abrogated, as equally incompatible with the 
 laws of nations and with the independence of the United States. 
 I confined myself, therefore, to a simple communication of your 
 letter. 
 
 But this reserve ceases when I address my own government ; 
 and, connected as I feel my official conduct and reputation with 
 this question of the right of search, I am sure I shall find an ex- 
 cuse for what might otherwise be considered presumption, if, 
 as one of the last acts of my official career, I submit to you, and 
 through you to the President, the peculiar circumstances in 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 191 
 
 which I am placed by the conclusion of this treaty, and by the 
 communication of your letter to M. Guizot. 
 
 Before proceeding further, however, permit me to remark, 
 that no one rejoices more sincerely than I do at the termination 
 of our difficulties with Great Britain, so far as they are termin- 
 ated. That country and ours have so many moral and mate- 
 rial interests involved in their intercourse, that their respective 
 governments and inhabitants may well feel more than ordinary 
 solicitude for the preservation of peace between these two great 
 nations. Our past history, however, will be unprofitable if it 
 do not teach us that unjust pretensions, affecting our rights and 
 honor, are best met by being promptly repelled when first urged, 
 and by being received in a spirit of resistance worthy the char- 
 acter of our people and of the great trust confided to us as the 
 depositaries of the freest system of government which the world 
 has yet witnessed. 
 
 I had the honor, in my letter of the 17th ultimo, to solicit 
 permission to return to the United States. That letter was 
 written the day a copy of the treaty reached Paris ; and the 
 remark which I then made to you, that " I could no longer be 
 useful here," has been confirmed by subsequent reflection, and 
 by the receipt of your letter and of the correspondence accom- 
 panying it. I feel that I could no longer remain here honora- 
 bly for myself or advantageously for our country. 
 
 In my letter to you of the 15th of February last, transmitting 
 a copy of my protest against the ratification of the quintuple 
 treaty for the suppression of the African slave trade, I took the 
 liberty of suggesting the propriety of demanding from Lord 
 Ashburton, previously to entering into any negotiation, a dis- 
 tinct renunciation of this claim to search our vessels. 1 thought 
 then, as I do now, that this course was demanded by a just 
 self-respect, and would be supported by that tribunal of public 
 opinion which sustains our government when right, and cor- 
 rects it when wrong. The pretension itself was one of the 
 most flagrant outrages which could be aimed at an independ- 
 ent nation ; and the mode of its enunciation was as coolly con- 
 temptuous as diplomatic ingenuity could suggest. We were 
 told, that to the doctrine that American vessels were free from 
 the search of foreign cruisers in time of peace, "the British 
 government never could or would subscribe ;" and we were 
 told, too, there was reason to expect that the United States 
 would themselves become converts to the same opinion ; and 
 this expectation was founded on the hope that " they would 
 cease to confound two things which are in their nature entirely 
 different, and would look to things, and not to words." And 
 the very concluding paragraph of the British correspondence 
 tells us, in effect, that we may take whatever course we please, 
 
192 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 but that England will adhere to this pretension to board our 
 vessels when and where her cruisers may find them. A por- 
 tion of this paragraph is equally significant and unceremonious. 
 "It is for the American government," says Lord Aberdeen, 
 •' alone to determine what may be due to a just regard for their 
 national dignity and national independence." I doubt if, in 
 the wide range of modern diplomacy, a more obnoxious claim 
 has been urged in a more obnoxious manner. 
 
 This claim, thus asserted and supported, was promptly met 
 and firmly repelled by the President in his message at the com- 
 mencement of the last session of Congress ; and in your letter 
 to me, approving the course I had adopted in relation to the 
 question of the ratification by France of the quintuple treaty, 
 you consider the principles of that message as the established 
 policy of the government. Under these circumstances of the 
 assertion and denial of this new claim of maritime police, the 
 eyes of Europe were upon these two great naval powers, one 
 of which had advanced a pretension, and avowed her determ- 
 ination to enforce it, which might at any moment bring them 
 into collision. So far our national dignity was uncompromited. 
 
 But England then urged the United States to enter into a 
 conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to 
 concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave 
 trade. Till then we had executed our own laws in our own 
 way. But, yielding to this application, and departing from 
 our former principle of avoiding European combinations upon 
 subjects not American, we stipulated, in a solemn treaty, that 
 we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the mini- 
 mum force we would employ for that purpose. Certainly, a 
 laudable desire to terminate this horrible man-stealing and 
 man-selling may well justify us in going further, in changing 
 one of the fundamental principles of our policy, in order to ef- 
 fect this object, than we would go to effect any other. It is so 
 much more a question of feeling than of reasoning, that we can 
 hardly be wrong in yielding to that impulse which leads us to 
 desire to unite our efforts with those of other nations for the 
 protection of the most sacred human rights. But, while mak- 
 ing so important a concession to the renewed application of 
 England, it seems to me w^e might well have said to her, Be- 
 fore we treat upon this matter, there is a preliminary question 
 connected with it which must he settled. We will do no act which 
 may, by any possibility, appear to he a recognition of your claim 
 to search our vessels. That claim has arisen out of this very 
 subject, or, at any rate, this subject has been the pretext for its 
 assertion ; and if we now negotiate upon it, and our concur- 
 rence is yielded, you must relinquish, as solemnly as you have 
 announced, this most offensive pretension. If this is not done, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 193 
 
 hy now making a conventional arrangement with you, and leav- 
 ing you free to take your oivn co2crse,we shall, in effect, abandon 
 the ground we have assumed, and with it our rights and honor. 
 
 In carefully looking at the seventh and eighth articles of the 
 treaty providing for our co-operation in the measures for the 
 suppression of this traffic, I do not see that they change in the 
 slightest degree the pre-existing right claimed by Great Brit- 
 ain to arrest and search our vessels. That claim, as advanced 
 both by Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen, rested on the 
 assumption that the treaties between England and other Eu- 
 ropean powers upon this subject could not be executed with- 
 out its exercise, and that the happy concwrence of these powers 
 not only justified this exercise, but rendered it indispensable. By 
 the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the coast of 
 Africa. We have kept one there for years — during the whole 
 term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this most iniqui- 
 tous commerce. The effect of the treaty is, therefore, to ren- 
 der it obligatory upon us, by a convention, to do what we have 
 long done voluntarily — to place our municipal laws, in some 
 measure, beyond the reach of Congress, and to increase the 
 strength of the squadron employed on this duty. But if a Brit- 
 ish cruiser met a vessel bearing the American flag, where there 
 is no American ship of war to examine her, it is obvious that it 
 is quite as indispensable and justifiable that the cruiser should 
 search this vessel to ascertain her nationality since the conclu- 
 sion of the treaty as it was before. The mutual rights of th& 
 parties are in this respect wholly untouched ; their pretensions 
 exist in full force; and what they could do prior to this ar- 
 rangement, they may do now ; for, though they have respective- 
 ly sanctioned the employment of a force to give effect " to the 
 laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries," yet they 
 have not prohibited the use of any other measure which ei- 
 ther party may be disposed to adopt. 
 
 It is unnecessary to push these considerations further ; and, 
 in carrying them thus far, I have found the task an unpleasant 
 one. Nothing but justice to myself could have induced me to 
 do it. I could not clearly explain my position here without this 
 recapitulation. My protest of the 13th of February distinctly 
 asserted that the United States would resist the pretension of 
 England to search our vessels. I avowed, at the same time, 
 that this was but my personal declaration, liable to be confirm- 
 ed or disavowed by my government. I now find a treaty has 
 been concluded between Great Britain and the United States, 
 which provides for the co-operation of the latter in efforts to 
 abolish the slave trade, but which contains no renunciation by 
 the former of the extraordinary pretension, resulting, as she 
 said, from the exigencies of these verv efforts ; and which pre- 
 
 N 
 
194 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 tension I felt it my duty to denounce to the French govern- 
 ment. In all this I presume to offer no further judgment than 
 as I am personally affected by the course of the proceedings ; 
 and I feel they have placed me in a false position, whence I 
 can escape but by returning home with the least possible de- 
 lay. I trust, therefore, that the President will have felt no 
 hesitation in granting me the permission which I asked for. 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, October 11, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of 
 the 17th of September last, requesting permission to return 
 home. 
 
 I have submitted the dispatch to the President, and am by 
 him directed to say that, although he much regrets that your 
 own wishes should, at this time, terminate your mission to the 
 court of France, where for a long period you have rendered 
 your country distinguished service, in all instances to its honor 
 and to the satisfaction of the government, and where you oc- 
 cupy so favorable a position, from the more than ordinary good 
 intelligence which is understood to subsist between you, per- 
 sonally, and the members of the French government, and from 
 the esteem entertained for you by its illustrious head ; yet he 
 can not refuse your request to return once more to your home 
 and your country, so that you can pay that attention to your 
 personal and private affairs which your long absence and con- 
 stant employment in the service of your government may now 
 render most necessary. 
 
 I have, sir, to tender you, on behalf of the President, his most 
 cordial good wishes, and am, &lc., 
 
 Fletcher Webster, Acting Secretary of State. 
 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Legation of the United States, Paris, October 29, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — 1 have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the 
 letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 14th instant, ac- 
 knowledging the reception of my letter to him of the 2d instant, 
 inclosing a copy of your communication of August 29th, re- 
 specting the conclusion of the recent treaty with Great Britain. 
 I am, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 195 
 
 [iNCLOSUKE. TRANSLATION.] 
 
 Paris, October 14, 1842. 
 
 General, — I have received, with the letter which you did 
 me the honor to address to me on the 2d instant, a copy of the 
 dispatch wherein Mr. Webster, the Secretary of State, while 
 communicating to you the result of his negotiations with Lord 
 Ashburton, her Britannic majesty's plenipotentiary, informs 
 you of the views of the Federal government with regard to 
 the repression of the slave trade. 
 
 I thank you, sir, for this communication, and I embrace with 
 satisfaction this opportunity to renew to you, &c., 
 
 GuiZOT. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, November 14, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 dispatch of the 3d of October, brought by the "Great Western," 
 which arrived at New York on the 6th instant. 
 
 It is probable you will have embarked for the United States 
 before my communication can now reach you ; but as it is 
 thought proper that your letter should be answered, and as 
 circumstances may possibly have occurred to delay your de- 
 parture, this will be transmitted to Paris in the ordinary way. 
 
 Your letter has caused the President considerable concern. 
 Entertaining a lively sense of the respectable and useful man- 
 ner in which you have discharged, for several years, the du- 
 ties of an important foreign mission, it occasions him real re- 
 gret and pain that your last official communication should be 
 of such a character as that he can not give to it his entire and 
 cordial approbation. 
 
 It appears to be intended as a sort of protest, a remonstrance, 
 in the form of an official dispatch, against a transaction of the 
 government to which you were not a party, in which you had 
 no agency whatever, and for the results of which you were no 
 way answerable. This would seem an unusual and extraor- 
 dinary proceeding. In common with every other citizen of 
 the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opin- 
 ions upon public transactions, and the conduct of public men ; 
 but it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or 
 the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstran- 
 ces and protests against proceedings of the various branches 
 of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which 
 he himself has not been charged with any duty or partaken 
 any responsibility. 
 
 The nego^ation and conclusion of the Treaty of Washing- 
 ton were in the hands of the President and Senate. They had 
 acted upon this important subject according to their convic- 
 
196 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 tions of duty and of the public interest, and had ratified the 
 treaty. It was a thing done ; and although your opinion might 
 be at variance with that of the President and Senate, it is not 
 perceived that you had any cause of complaint, remonstrance, 
 or protest, more than any other citizen who might entertain 
 the same opinion. 
 
 In your letter of the 17th of September, requesting your re- 
 call, you observe, " The mail by the steam-packet which left 
 Boston the 1st instant has just arrived, and has brought intel- 
 ligence of the ratification of the treaties recently concluded 
 with Great Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of any im- 
 mediate difficulties with that country are at an end, and I do 
 not see that any public interest demands my further residence 
 in Europe. I can no longer be useful here, and the state of 
 my private affairs requires my presence at home. Under these 
 circumstances, I beg you to submit to the President my wish 
 for permission to retire from this mission, and to return to the 
 United vStates without delay." 
 
 As you appeared at that time not to be acquainted with the 
 provisions of the treaty, it was inferred that your desire to re- 
 turn home proceeded from the conviction that, inasmuch as all 
 apprehensions of irjimediate differences with Great Britain were 
 at an end, you would no longer be useful at Paris. Placing 
 this interpretation on your letter, and believing, as you your- 
 self allege, that your long absence abroad rendered it desira- 
 ble for you to give some attention to your private affairs in this 
 country, the President lost no time in yielding to your request, 
 and, in doing so, signified to you the sentiments of approbation 
 which he entertained for your conduct abroad. You may then 
 well imagine the great astonishment which the declaration 
 contained in your dispatch of the 3d of October, that you could 
 no longer remain in France honorably to yourself or advanta- 
 geously to the country, and that the proceedings of this gov- 
 ernment had placed you in a false position, from which you 
 could escape only by returning home, created in his mind. 
 
 The President perceives not the slightest foundation for these 
 opinions. He can not see how your usefulness as minister to 
 France should be terminated by the settlement of difficulties 
 and disputes between the United States and Great Britain. 
 You have been charged with no duties connected with the set- 
 tlement of these questions, or in any way relating to them, be- 
 yond the communication to the French government of the Pres- 
 ident's approbation of your letter of the 13th of February, 
 written without previous instructions from this department. 
 This government is not informed of any other act or proceed- 
 ing of yours connected with any part of the subject, nor does 
 it know that your official conduct and character have become 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 197 
 
 in any other way connected with the question of the right of 
 search ; and that letter having been approved, and the French 
 government having been so informed, the President is altogeth- 
 er at a loss to understand how you can regard yourself as 
 placed in a false position. If the character or conduct of any 
 one was to be affected, it could only be the character and con- 
 duct of the President himself. The government has done noth- 
 ing, most assuredly, to place you in a false position. Repre- 
 senting your country at a foreign court, you saw a transaction 
 about to take place between the government to which you 
 were accredited and another power, which you thought might 
 have a prejudicial effect on the interest of your own country. 
 Thinking, as it is to be presumed, that the case was too press- 
 ing to wait for instructions, you presented a protest against 
 that transaction, and your government approved your proceed- 
 ing. This is your only ofhcial connection with the whole sub- 
 ject. If after this the President had sanctioned the negotiation 
 of a treaty, and the Senate had ratified it, containing provi- 
 sions in the highest degree objectionable, however the govern- 
 ment might be discredited, your exemption from all blame and 
 censure would have been complete. Having delivered your 
 letter of the 13th of February to the French government, and 
 having received the President's approbation of that proceeding, 
 it is most manifest that you could be in no degree responsible 
 for what should be done afterward, and done by others. The 
 President, therefore, can not conceive what particular or per- 
 sonal interest of yours was affected by the subsequent negoti- 
 ation here, or how the treaty, the result of that negotiation, 
 should put an end to your usefulness as a pubhc minister at the 
 court of France, or any way affect your official character or 
 conduct. 
 
 It is impossible not to see that such a proceeding as you have 
 seen fit to adopt might produce much inconvenience, and even 
 serious prejudice, to the public interests. Your opinion is 
 against the treaty, a treaty concluded and formally ratified ; 
 and, to support that opinion, while yet in the service of the 
 government, you put a construction on its provisions such as 
 your own government does not put upon them, such as you 
 must be aware the enlightened public of Europe does not put 
 upon them, and such as England herself has not put upon them 
 as yet, so far as we know. 
 
 It may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in 
 connection with other correspondence of the mission ; and al- 
 though it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publi- 
 cation, because such a presumption would impute to you a 
 claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of 
 the President and Senate, in a transaction finished and con- 
 
198 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 eluded, through the imposing form of a public dispatch, yet, if 
 published, it can not be foreseen how far England might here- 
 after rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her 
 own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor 
 of the United States. It is certain that you would most sedu- 
 lously desire to avoid any such attitude. You would be slow 
 to express opinions, in a solemn and official form, favorable to 
 another government, and on the authority of which opinions 
 that other government might hereafter found new claims or 
 set up new pretensions. It is for this reason, as well as others, 
 that the President feels so much regret at your desire of pla- 
 cing your construction of the provisions of the treaty, and your 
 objections to those provisions, according to your construction, 
 upon the records of the government. 
 
 Before examining the several objections suggested by you, 
 it may be proper to take notice of what you say upon the course 
 of the negotiation. In regard to this, having observed that the 
 national dignity of the United States had not been compro- 
 mited down to the time of the President's Message to the last 
 sesssion of Congress, you proceed to say : " But England then 
 urged the United States to enter into a conventional arrange- 
 ment, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in 
 measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Till then we 
 had executed our own laws in our own way. But, yielding to 
 this application, and departing from our former principle of 
 avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
 we stipulated, in a solemn treaty, that we would carry into ef- 
 fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
 ploy for that purpose." 
 
 The President can not conceive how you should have been 
 led to adventure upon such a statement as this. It is but a tis- 
 sue of mistakes. England did not urge the United States to 
 enter into this conventional arrangement. The United States 
 yielded to no application from England. The proposition for 
 abolishing the slave trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an 
 American proposition ; it originated with the executive gov- 
 ernment of the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
 responsibility. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling 
 its duties and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United 
 States departed, in this treaty, in the slightest degree from their 
 former principles of avoiding European combinations upon 
 subjects not American, because the abolition of the African 
 slave trade is an American subject as emphatically as it is a 
 European subject ; and indeed more so, inasmuch as the gov- 
 ernment of the United States took the first great steps in de- 
 claring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. 
 The abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 199 
 
 to the American people and the American government ; and 
 you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the import- 
 ant fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the Treaty of Ghent, 
 the United States bound themselves, by solemn compact with 
 England, to continue " their efforts to promote its entire abo- 
 lition," both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use 
 their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. 
 
 Again, you speak of an important concession made to the 
 renewed application of England. But the treaty, let it be re- 
 peated, makes no concession to England whatever. It com- 
 plies with no demand, grants no application, conforms to no 
 request. All these statements, thus by you made, and which 
 are so exceedingly erroneous, seem calculated to hold up the 
 idea that in this treaty your government has been acting a 
 subordinate or even a complying part. 
 
 The President is not a little startled that you should make 
 such totally groundless assumptions of fact, and then leave a 
 discreditable inference to be drawn from them. He directs 
 me not only to repel this inference as it ought to be repelled, 
 but also to bring to your serious consideration and reflection 
 the propriety of such an assumed narration of facts as your 
 dispatch, in this respect, puts forth. 
 
 Having informed the department that a copy of the letter of 
 the 24th of August, addressed by me to you, had been deliv- 
 ered to M. Guizot, you proceed to say : " In executing this 
 duty, I felt too well what was due to my government and coun- 
 try to intimate my regret to a foreign power that some declara- 
 tion had not preceded the treaty, or some stipulation accom- 
 panied it, by which the extraordinary pretension of Great Brit- 
 ain to search our ships at all times and in all places, first put 
 forth to the world by Lord Palmerston on the 27th of August, 
 1841, and on the 13th of October following again peremptori- 
 ly claimed as a right by Lord Aberdeen, would have been ab- 
 rogated, as equally incompatible with the laws of nations and 
 with the independence of the United States. I confined my- 
 self, therefore, to a simple communication of your letter." It 
 may be true that the British pretension leads necessarily to 
 consequences as broad and general as your statement. But it 
 is no more than fair to state that pretension in the words of 
 the British government itself, and then it becomes matter of 
 consideration and argument how broad and extensive it really 
 is. The last statement of this pretension, or claim, by the Brit- 
 ish government is contained in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. 
 Stevenson of the 13th of October, 1841. It is in these words : 
 " The undersigned readilj^ admits that to visit and search 
 American vessels in time of peace, when that right of search 
 is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, 
 
200 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 and a violation of national dignity and independence. But no 
 such right is asserted. We sincerely desire to respect the ves- 
 sels of the United States, but we may reasonably expect to 
 know what it really is that we respect. Doubtless the flag is 
 prima facie evidence of the nationality of the vessel ; and, if 
 this evidence were in its nature conclusive and irrefragable, it 
 ought to preclude all further inquiry. But it is sufficiently no- 
 torious that the flags of all nations are liable to be assumed by 
 those who have no right or title to bear them. Mr. Stevenson 
 himself fully admits the extent to which the American flag has 
 been employed for the purpose of covering this infamous traf- 
 fic. The undersigned joins with Mr. Stevenson in deeply la- 
 menting the evil ; and he agrees with him in thinking that the 
 United States ought not to be considered responsible for this 
 abuse of their flag. But if all inquiry be resisted, even when 
 carried no further than to ascertain the nationality of the ves- 
 sel, and impunity be claimed for the most lawless and desperate 
 of mankind in the commission of this fraud, the undersigned 
 greatly fears that it may be regarded as something like an as- 
 sumption of that responsibility which has been deprecated by 
 Mr. Stevenson." ****** 
 
 " The undersigned renounces all pretension on the part of 
 the British government to visit and search American vessels in 
 time of peace. Nor is it as American that such vessels are 
 ever visited ; but it has been the invariable practice of the Brit- 
 ish navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the 
 world, to ascertain, by visit, the real nationality of merchant 
 vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to 
 apprehend their illegal character." * # * * 
 
 " The undersigned admits that, if the British cruiser should 
 possess a knowledge of the American character of any vessel, 
 his visitation of such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. He 
 further admits that so much respect and honor are due to the 
 American flag, that no vessel bearing it ought to be visited by 
 a British cruiser, except under the most grave suspicions and 
 well-founded doubts of the genuineness of its character. 
 
 " The undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such 
 visit should lead to the proof of the American origin of the 
 vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave trade, 
 exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other usual im- 
 plements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortunate 
 beings on board, no British officer could interfere further. He 
 might give information to the cruisers of the United States, 
 but it could not be in his own power to arrest or impede the 
 prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking. 
 
 " It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost caution is neces- 
 sary in the exercise of this right claimed by Great Britain. 
 
Dd'LO.MATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 201 
 
 While we have recourse to the necessary, and, indeed, the 
 only means for detecting imposture, the practice will be care- 
 fully guarded and limited to cases of strong suspicion. The 
 undersigned begs to assure Mr. Stevenson that the most pre- 
 cise and positive instructions have been issued to her majes- 
 ty's officers on this subject." 
 
 Such are the words of the British claim or pretension ; and 
 it stood in this form at the delivery of the President's Message 
 to Congress in December last : a message in which you are 
 pleased to say that the British pretension was promptly met 
 and firmly resisted. 
 
 I may now proceed to a more particular examination of the 
 objections which you make to the treaty. 
 
 You observe that you think a just self-respect required of 
 the government of the United States to demand of Lord Ash- 
 burton a distinct renunciation of the British claim to search 
 our vessels, previous to entering into any negotiation. The 
 government has thought otherwise ; and this appears to be 
 your main objection to the treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only 
 one which is clearly and distinctly stated. The government 
 of the United States supposed that, in this respect, it stood in 
 a position in which it had no occasion to demand any thing, or 
 ask for any thing, of England. The British pretension, what- 
 ever it was, or however extensive, was well known to the 
 President at the date of his message to Congress at the open- 
 ing of the last session. And I must be allowed to remind you 
 how the President treated this subject in that communication. 
 
 " However desirous the United States may be," said he, 
 " for the suppression of the slave trade, they can not consent 
 to interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and 
 pleasure of other governments. We deny the right of any 
 such interpolation to any one, or all the nations of the earth, 
 without our consent. We claim to have a voice in all amend- 
 ments or alterations of that code ; and when we are given to 
 understand, as in this instance, by a foreign government, that 
 its treaties with other nations can not be executed without the 
 establishment and enforcement of new principles of maritime 
 police, to be applied without our consent, we must employ a 
 language neither of equivocal import nor susceptible of mis- 
 construction. American citizens prosecuting a lawful com- 
 merce in the African seas, under the flag of their country, are 
 not responsible for the abuse or unlawful use of that flag by 
 others ; nor can they rightfully, on account of any such al- 
 leged abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained while on 
 the ocean ; and if thus molested and detained while pursuing 
 honest voyages in the usual way, and violating no law them- 
 selves, they are unquestionably entitled to indemnity." 
 
203 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 This declaration of the President stands : not a syllable of 
 it has been, or will be, retracted. The principles which it an- 
 nounces rest on their inherent justice and propriety, on their 
 conformity to public law, and, so far as we are concerned, on 
 the determination and ability of the country to maintain them. 
 To these principles the government is pledged, and that pledge 
 it will be at all times ready to redeem. 
 
 But what is your own language on this point? You say 
 " this claim (the British claim), thus asserted and supported, 
 was promptly met and firmly repelled by the President in his 
 message at the commencement of the last session of Congress ; 
 and in your letter to me approving the course I had adopted 
 in relation to the question of the ratification by France of the 
 quintuple treaty, you consider the principles of that message 
 as the established policy of the government." And you add, 
 " So far our national dignity was uncompromited." If this 
 be so, what is there which has since occurred to compromit 
 this dignity ? You shall yourself be judge of this ; because 
 you say, in a subsequent part of your letter, that " the mutual 
 rights of the parties are in this respect wholly untouched." If, 
 then, the British pretension had been promptly met and firmly 
 repelled by the President's Message ; if, so far, our national 
 dignity had not been compromited ; and if, as you further say, 
 our rights remain wholly untouched by any subsequent act or 
 proceeding, what ground is there on which to found complaint 
 against the treaty '( 
 
 But your sentiments on this point do not concur with the 
 opinions of your government. That government is of opinion 
 that the sentiments of the message, w'hich you so highly ap- 
 prove, are reaflirmed and corroborated by the treaty, and the 
 correspondence accompanying it. The very object sought to 
 be obtained, in proposing the mode adopted for abolishing the 
 slave trade, was to take away all pretense whatever for inter- 
 rupting lawful commerce by the visitation of American vessels. 
 Allow me to refer you, on this point, to the following passage 
 in the message of the President to the Senate, accompanying 
 the treaty : 
 
 " In my message at the commencement of the present ses- 
 sion of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which 
 this government supports respecting the right of search and 
 the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those princi- 
 ples fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be 
 fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the dignity and 
 honor of the country that it should execute its own laws and 
 perform its own obligations by its own means and its own 
 power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels 
 of one nation by the cruisers of another, for any purposes ex- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 203 
 
 cept those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, 
 under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, 
 may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other 
 means to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, 
 for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant 
 vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, 
 apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the 
 interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expe- 
 dient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty 
 of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the 
 part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag 
 upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of na- 
 tions, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate. 
 
 " The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no altera- 
 tion, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of na- 
 tions. It provides simply that each of the two governments 
 shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to en- 
 force, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obliga- 
 tions of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade." 
 
 In the actual posture of things, the President thought that 
 the government of the United States, standing on its own 
 rights and its own solemn declarations, would only weaken its 
 position by making such a demand as appears to you to have 
 been expedient. We maintain the public law of the world as 
 we receive it and understand it to be established. We defend 
 our own rights and our own honor, meeting all aggression at 
 the boundary. Here we may well stop. 
 
 You are pleased to observe, that " under the circumstances 
 of the assertion of the British claim, in the correspondence of 
 the British secretaries, and of its denial by the President of the 
 United States, the eyes of Europe were upon these two great 
 naval powers ; one of which had advanced a pretension, and 
 avowed her determination to enforce.it, which might at any 
 moment bring them into collision." 
 
 It is certainly true that the attention of Europe has been 
 very much awakened, of late years, to the general subject, and 
 quite alive, also, to whatever might take place in regard to it 
 between the United States and Great Britain. And it is high- 
 ly satisfactory to find that, so far as we can learn, the opinion 
 is universal that the government of the United States has fully 
 sustained its rights and its dignity by the treaty which has 
 been concluded. Europe, we believe, is happy to see that a 
 collision, which might have disturbed the peace of the whole 
 civilized world, has been avoided in a manner which recon- 
 ciles the performance of a high national duty, and the fulfill- 
 ment of positive stipulations, to the perfect immunity of flags 
 and the equality of nations upon the ocean. I must be per- 
 
304 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 mitted to add that, from every agent of the government abroad 
 who has been heard from on the subject, with the single ex- 
 ception of your own letter (an exception most deeply regret- 
 ted), as well as from every part of Europe where maritime 
 rights have advocates and defenders, we have received noth- 
 ing but congratulation. And at this moment, if the general 
 sources of information may be trusted, our example has rec- 
 ommended itself already to the regard of states the most 
 jealous of British ascendency at sea ; and the treaty against 
 which you remonstrate may soon come to be esteemed by them 
 as a fit model for imitation. 
 
 Toward the close of your dispatch, you are pleased to say : 
 "By the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the 
 coast of Africa. We have kept one there for years — during 
 the whole term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this 
 most iniquitous commerce. The effect of the treaty is, there- 
 fore, to render it obligatory upon us, by a convention, to do 
 what we have long done voluntarily — to place our munici- 
 pal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress." 
 Should the effect of the treaty be to place our municipal 
 laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress, it is 
 sufficient to say that all treaties containing obligations neces- 
 sarily do this. All treaties of commerce do it ; and, indeed, 
 there is hardly a treaty existing, to which the United States 
 are party, which does not, to some extent, or in some way, re- 
 strain the legislative power. Treaties could not be made 
 without producing this effect. 
 
 But your remark would seem to imply that, in your judgment, 
 there is something derogatory to the character and dignity of 
 the country in thus stipulating with a foreign power for a con- 
 current effort to execute the laws of each. It would be a suf- 
 ficient refutation of this objection to say that, if in this ar- 
 rangement there be any thing derogatory to the character and 
 dignity of one party, it must be equally derogatory, since the 
 stipulation is perfectly mutual, to the character and dignity of 
 both. But it is derogatory to the character and dignity of 
 neither. The objection seems to proceed still upon the implied 
 ground that the abolition of the slave trade is more a duty of 
 Great Britain, or a more leading object with her, than it is or 
 should be with us ; as if, in this great effort of civilized nations 
 to do away the most cruel traffic that ever scourged or dis- 
 graced the world, we had not as high and honorable, as just 
 and merciful a part to act, as any other nation upon the face 
 of the earth. Let it be forever remembered, that in this great 
 work of humanity and justice the United States took the lead 
 themselves. This government declared the slave trade un- 
 lawful ; and in this declaration it has been followed by the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 205 
 
 great powers of Europe. This government declared the slave 
 trade to be piracy ; and in this, too, its example has been fol- 
 lowed by other states. This government — this young gov- 
 ernment — springing up in this new world within half a centu- 
 ry, founded on the broadest principles of civil liberty, and sus- 
 tained by the moral sense and intelligence of the people, has 
 gone in advance of all other nations in summoning the civil- 
 ized world to a common effort to put down and destroy a ne- 
 farious traffic reproachful to human nature. It has not deemed, 
 and it does not deem, that it suffers any derogation from its 
 character or its dignity, if, in seeking to fulfill this sacred duty, 
 it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal terms of concert 
 with other powers having in view the same praiseworthy ob- 
 ject. Such were its sentiments when it entered into the sol- 
 emn stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent ; such were its senti- 
 ments when it requested England to concur with us in declar- 
 ing the slave trade to be piracy ; and such are the sentiments 
 which it has manifested on all other proper occasions. 
 
 In conclusion, I have to repeat the expression of the Presi- 
 dent's deep regret at the general tone and character of your 
 letter, and to assure you of the great happiness it would have 
 afforded him if, concurring with the judgment of the President 
 and Senate — concurring with what appears to be the general 
 sense of the country — concurring in all the manifestations of 
 enlightened public opinion in Europe — you had seen nothing 
 in the treaty of the 9th of August to which you could not give 
 your cordial approbation. 
 
 I have, &c., Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Ml'. Cass to Mr. Webster. 
 
 New York, December 11, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Upon my arrival here yesterday, the duplicate of 
 your letter of November 14 was delivered to me. I embrace 
 the first moment in my power to acknowledge its receipt. 
 
 I am too well aware of what is due from me to the govern- 
 ment to renew, or unnecessarily to prolong, the discussion of 
 the subject contained in my letter of October 3. In submitting 
 to you the views I entertained, I fulfilled a duty which, in my 
 opinion, circumstances imposed upon me. But I should con- 
 sider myself obnoxious to the censure of improper interference, 
 with which you have not sparingly reproached me, but from 
 which I trust I shall satisfy you I am free, did I seek to make 
 my correspondence with the department the vehicle for ob- 
 truding my sentiments upon the government. Still, I am anx- 
 ious not to be misunderstood, and more especially since you 
 give me to understand that the communications which have 
 
206 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 passed between us upon this subject are to be published, and 
 thus submitted to the great tribunal of public opinion, which 
 will be called upon to decide respecting the course I have 
 deemed it necessary to adopt, as well as the manner in which 
 I have fulfilled the task. And as you have, in several instan- 
 ces, misapprehended my views, and adapted your reasoning 
 to your constructions rather than to my sentiments, and as I 
 have full confidence in your desire to do me justice, I must beg 
 leave briefly to lay before you such considerations connected 
 with my letter, and your comments upon it, as are essential to 
 a correct judgment between us. 
 
 And, first, with respect to the procedure on my part. 
 
 You object to my whole course of action in this matter, be- 
 cause it appears to you to be " intended as a sort of protest or 
 remonstrance against a transaction of the government," &c. 
 
 I have been very unhappy in the mode in which I have ex- 
 pressed myself, if I am justly liable to this charge. My letter 
 is not a protest or a remonstrance. It is a simple answer to a 
 dispatch which I had the honor to receive from you. In your 
 letter of August 29, you communicated to me the views of the 
 President in relation to the treaty then recently concluded with 
 England ; and you also authorized me to make known these 
 views to the French government. This I did, both in conver- 
 sation and in writing. Here was a dispatch requiring my ac- 
 tion, and which received it in good faith. But I did not coin- 
 cide with you in opinion respecting an important bearing of 
 this treaty. I thought it left us in a worse position than it 
 found us ; and so thinking, I deemed it my right, and felt it my 
 duty, to lay before you the impression which the whole matter 
 had left upon my mind. I did so, and the result is before you. 
 Under these circumstances, was I guilty of indiscretion, or of 
 an impertinent interference, still more offensive, which, it seems 
 to me, from the tone of your letter, is the construction you put 
 upon my action ? 
 
 This question will, perhaps, be best answered by another. 
 Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent to receive all the commu- 
 nications of his government, and to carry into effect their in- 
 structions sub silentio, whatever may be his own sentiments in 
 relation to them ? Or, is he not bound, as a faithful represent- 
 ative, to communicate freely, but respectfully, his own views, 
 that these may be considered and receive their due weight in 
 that particular case, or in other circumstances involving sim- 
 ilar considerations ? It seems to me that the bare enunciation 
 of the principle is all that is necessary for my justification. I 
 am speaking now of the propriety of my action, not of the man- 
 ner in which it was performed. I may have executed the task 
 well or ill ; I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, and 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 207 
 
 urged them indiscreetly. All this I leave without remark. 1 
 am only endeavoring here to free myself from the serious 
 charge which you bring against me. If I have misapprehend- 
 ed the duties of an American diplomatic agent upon this sub- 
 ject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, by a timely resig- 
 nation, from a position in which my own self-respect would 
 not permit me to remain. And I may express the conviction 
 that there is no government — certainly none this side of Con- 
 stantinople — which would not encourage, rather than rebuke, 
 the free expression of the views of their representatives in for- 
 eign countries. But, independently of this general objection to 
 all action on my part, you present me wath another, perhaps 
 still more formidable, but which is applicable only to the cir- 
 cumstances of this case. Without repeating in full the view 
 you urge upon this part of the subject, I shall condense the ob- 
 jection into the proposition that the expression of my senti- 
 ments to the government upon this occasion might induce En- 
 gland hereafter " to rely upon my authority for a construction 
 favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the in- 
 terest and honor of the United States." 
 
 In the first place, I would remark that I have written for my 
 own government, and not for that of England. The publica- 
 tion of my letter which is to produce this result is to be the act 
 "bf the government, and not my act. But if the President should 
 think that the slightest injury to the public interest would en- 
 sue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried 
 in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
 dered harmless. 
 
 But, even were immediate publicity to be given to it, I know 
 my own insignificance too well to believe it would produce the 
 slightest influence upon the pretensions or the course of En- 
 gland. The English public, and especially the English states- 
 men, are too sagacious to need the suggestions of any foreign- 
 er, and too pertinacious in the assertion of their claims to seek 
 his authority for their support. When England, in her progress 
 to that supremacy upon the ocean which has been the steady 
 object of her ambition for centuries, and will continue to be so, 
 abandons a single pretension after she has once advanced it, 
 then there may be reason to believe she has adopted a system 
 of moderation, which may be strengthened or weakened, as 
 the opinion of others is favorable or unfavorable to her. There 
 is no evidence that that time is near. But were it otherwise, 
 does it follow that in all discussions between nations it is the 
 duty of every man to believe his own government has attained 
 every object which the interest or honor of the country re- 
 quires ; or, not believing it, to remain silent, and to refrain 
 from all representations, either to the government itself or to 
 
208 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the public, with a view to the ultimate correction of the error, 
 and to the relief of his country from a false position ? I must 
 confess I do not carry my patriotic devotion thus far. I agree 
 that when nations have appealed from argument to force, and 
 when a war is raging, it is the duty of every citizen to put all 
 other considerations behind him, and, avoiding profitless and 
 party discussions upon the past, to join with head, heart, and 
 hand to repel the common foe. At such a time I would not 
 speak words of censure even to my countrymen, lest I should 
 be overheard by the enemy. And that this is not with me a 
 barren doctrine, I trust I have given sufficient evidence in per- 
 ilous times. But I was not prepared for that excess of patri- 
 otic zeal (pardon me the expression, for such it appears to me) 
 which would carry this reserve into all the actions of the gov- 
 ernment, as well in peace as in war. I believe that in our re- 
 cent treaty with England sufficient precaution was not taken 
 to guard against her claim to search our ships. This belief I 
 entertain in common with many other citizens, in office and out 
 of office ; and I, as well as they, have expressed it. It has 
 been declared in the Senate, in the public journals, in every 
 district of our country. And I can not feel that this avowal of 
 our sentiments, in whatever form it is made, whether official 
 or unofficial, justly subjects us to the charge of taking a course 
 which may hereafter enable other governments to " set up new 
 pretensions." 
 
 Permit me now to advert to the serious charge you have 
 made against me of venturing upon a statement ivkich is a tis- 
 sue of mistakes. This statement you quote, and it is that part 
 of my letter in which, after showing that, to a certain point of 
 time, our national honor had been preserved inviolate, I pro- 
 ceed to show that the subsequent course of events had not been 
 equally fortunate. I remark, that England then urged the 
 United States to enter into a conventional arrangement by 
 which the joint action of the two countries in the suppression 
 of the slave trade might be secured. You pronounce this state- 
 ment a mistake, and assert that the proposition came from our 
 government. 
 
 That the particular mode in which the governments should 
 act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested 
 by yourself, I never doubted ; and if this is the construction I 
 am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no diffi- 
 culty upon the subject. The question between us is untouched. 
 All I said was, that England continued to prosecute the mat- 
 ter ; that she presented it for negotiation ; and that we, there- 
 fore, consented to its introduction ; and if Lord Ashburton did 
 not come out with, instructions from his government to en- 
 deavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the world 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 209 
 
 has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of his 
 mission, and I have misunderstood that paragraph in your first 
 note where you say that Lord Ashburton comes with full pow- 
 ers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion between 
 England and the United States. But the very fact of his 
 coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respecting 
 the slave trade, is conclusive proof that his government were 
 desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States. I 
 had supposed our government would scarcely take the initia- 
 tive in this matter, and urge it upon that of Great Britain, 
 either in Washington or in London. If it did so, I can only 
 express my regret, and confess that I have been led inadvert- 
 ently into an error. 
 
 You then proceed to remark, in continuation of this tissue of 
 mistakes, that, in entering into this arrangement, the United 
 States did not depart from the principle of avoiding European 
 combinations upon a subject not American, because the aboli- 
 tion of the slave trade is equally an American and European 
 subject. This may be so. I may be wrong in the application 
 of the principle ; but such an erroneous conclusion scarcely 
 justifies the epithet of an adventurous statement — one of a tissue 
 of mistakes. But, apart from this, I still think that combina- 
 tions of this kind are among the "entangling alliances" against 
 which the great statesman, whose exposition of our constitu- 
 tion will go down to posterity with the instrument itself, 
 warned his countrymen ; and the perpetually recurring diffi- 
 culties, which are presenting themselves in the execution of 
 the conventions between France and England upon this sub- 
 ject, should be a caution to nations against the introduction of 
 new maritime principles whose operations and results it is dif- 
 ficult to foresee. 
 
 But is the suppression of the African slave trade one of 
 those American objects in the attainment of which we ought 
 to seek the co-operation of other nations, and regulate our own 
 duties and theirs by treaty stipulations ? I do not think so. 
 In the first place, the principle would necessarily lead us to 
 form alliances with every maritime nation. It is not England 
 alone whose flag rides over the seas. Other countries must 
 co-operate, if any co-operation is necessary ; and, if we have 
 made propositions to England to join us in this effort, I do not 
 see why we stop there, and deprive ourselves of the aid which 
 the action of other nations would afford. I doubt if the people 
 of this country are prepared for such extensive combinations. 
 
 But, again, while fully agreeing with you in all the odium 
 you cast upon that infamous traffic, it appears to me that any 
 object interesting to humanity, and in which nations may with 
 propriety engage, has the same claim, if not in degree, at least 
 
 O 
 
210 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 in principle, upon our interference, and calls upon us for a 
 union with other nations to effect it. It may be easily seen, 
 not where such a doctrine would conduct us — that escapes hu- 
 man sagacity — but toward what ruinous consequences it leads. 
 
 You conclude this branch of the subject by informing me 
 that you are directed by the President to bring to my " serious 
 consideration and reflection the propriety of such an assumed 
 narration of facts as your dispatch in this respect puts forth." 
 I shall not say one word to give the President any cause of 
 offense ; and, if I felt that I was justly obnoxious to this censure, 
 I should submit to the rebuke in silence. He would have a 
 right to make it, and it would be my duty to acquiesce ; but I 
 have that confidence in his innate love of justice, that he will 
 receive my explanations, and judge me by my words, and not 
 by unauthorized constructions. 
 
 Now, in all that I have said in the paragraph to which you 
 allude, and which you have so strongly qualified, you have 
 pointed out but one fact as erroneous, and that is the assertion 
 that the introduction of the subject of the slave trade into the 
 treaty was due to the application of England ; and whether 
 even this was an error, depends upon the construction to be 
 given to your explanation. All else — I repeat it, all else, to 
 the very least idea, is matter of inference ; it is my deduction 
 from the circumstances of the case. I may be right or wrong, 
 logically, in the conclusions I have reached ; but certainly I 
 am not morally responsible for their correctness, as I should 
 be if I asserted merely naked facts. It is, therefore, with not 
 a little astonishment I have read and re-read what I wrote, and 
 the commentary you have been pleased to make upon it. It 
 is neither necessary nor proper that I should renew the gen- 
 eral subject of my letter ; and, therefore, I do not feel it my 
 duty to trouble you with any remarks respecting the views 
 you have presented me of the pretensions of the British gov- 
 ernment to search our ships ; but, when you proceed to array 
 me against myself, I must claim the right to vindicate my own 
 consistency. You quote me, and quote me correctly, as say- 
 ing that, up to the delivery of the annual message of 1841, our 
 national dignity was uncompromited. You then ask what has 
 since occurred to compromit this dignity ? and you add, em- 
 phatically, that I shall myself be the judge of this, because, in 
 a subsequent part of my dispatch, I say the mutual rights of 
 the parties are wholly unchanged ; and you ask, if they are 
 unchanged, what ground there is on which to found a com- 
 plaint against the treaty. I think that a very brief retrospect 
 will be the best answer I can give to this question, and that it 
 will redeem me from the implied charge of inconsistency. 
 
 I never said nor intimated in my dispatch to you, nor in any 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 211 
 
 manner whatever, that our government had conceded to that 
 of England the right to search our ships. That idea, how^ever. 
 pervades your letter, and is very apparent in that part of it 
 which brings to my observation the possible effect of my views 
 upon the English government ; but in this you do me, though. 
 I am sure, unintentionally, great injustice. I repeatedly state 
 that the recent treaty leaves the rights of the parties as it 
 found them. My difficulty is not that we have made a positive 
 concession, but that we have acted unadvisedly in not mak- 
 ing the abandonment of this pretension a previous condition 
 to any conventional arrangement upon the general subject. I 
 had supposed, till I read your letter, that this view was too 
 distinctly expressed in my dispatch to admit of any miscon- 
 struction. I will condense into a small space what I deem it 
 necessary to say in defense of my consistency. 
 
 England claimed the right, in order, as she said, to carry 
 into effect certain treaties she had formed for the suppression 
 of the slave trade, to board and search our vessels upon the 
 high seas wherever she might find them. Our government, 
 with energy and promptness, repelled this pretension. Short- 
 ly after, a special British embassador arrived in our country, 
 having powers to treat upon this matter of the slave trade. 
 The negotiation terminated by an arrangement which secures 
 the co-operation of the United States in the efforts that En- 
 gland is making upon this subject ; but not a word is said upon 
 the serious claim that subjects to the naval inquisition of a com- 
 mercial rival our ships, which the enterprise of our merchants 
 is sending to every part of our globe ; and yet this claim arises 
 out of the very subject-matter embraced in the treaty. We 
 negotiate with England for the suppression of the slave trade 
 at the very moment her statesmen are telling us, in no meas- 
 ured terms, that, to suppress it, she will violate our flag, and 
 that she will never give up this pretension. Now here, it ap- 
 pears to me, the government should have stopped. The En- 
 glish negotiator should have been told, " We abhor as much 
 as you do the traffic in human beings, and we will do all that 
 our peculiar institutions permit to put an end to it ; but we 
 will not suffer this matter to be made a pretext for wounding 
 our honor and violating our rights ; we will not take a single 
 step till you renounce this claim ; we have denounced it al- 
 ready ; and, if we should negotiate upon the subject-matter 
 without settling this preliminary question, it may seem like an 
 abandonment of the ground we have taken, or an indifference 
 to the consequences." 
 
 Had this course been pursued, the sincerity of the British 
 government would have undergone a practical test, from which 
 there would have been no escape. It would not have been 
 
212 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 necessary to quote the last dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to show 
 what he meant in another, or Lord Palmerston in the first. If 
 such a proposition had been made and accepted, our honor 
 would have been vindicated, our rights secured, and a bright 
 example of sincerity and moderation would have been given 
 to the world by a great nation. If it had been rejected, that 
 would have proved that our co-operation in the suppression 
 of the slave trade was a question of minor importance, to be 
 sacrificed to the preservation of a pretension intended to in- 
 troduce an entire change in the maritime police of the world. 
 
 Why this very obvious course was not adopted, I am utterly 
 at a loss to conjecture ; and that it was not, is precisely the 
 objection to which the whole arrangement is liable. Instead 
 of the high ground we should then have occupied, we now 
 find ourselves seriously discussing the question whether or not 
 England will enforce this claim. That she will do so when 
 her interest requires it, I have no more doubt than I have that 
 she has already given us abundant proof that the received 
 code of public law is but a feeble barrier when it stands in the 
 way of power and ambition. Lord Palmerston and Lord Aber- 
 deen both tell us she will. 
 
 You refer to that part of my letter in which I observe that 
 the effect of the new stipulation is to place our municipal laws, 
 in some measure, beyond the reach of Congress, and remark 
 that such is often the effect of commercial treaties. It is so, 
 and we can only expect to obtain commercial advantages by 
 stipulations for corresponding advantages, which, while they 
 endure, are beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. This is 
 matter of necessity. But this necessity does not exist in the 
 punishment of crimes. We are able to enforce our own laws ; 
 and I do not see that the power to enforce those of England 
 gives us any just compensation for permitting her to interfere 
 in our criminal code, whether the offense is committed upon 
 the land or upon the water. It seems to me a principle fraught 
 with dangerous consequences, and which a prudent govern- 
 ment had better avoid. 
 
 There is but one other topic which I consider it necessary 
 to advert to : but that is an important one, and I pray your in- 
 dulgence while I briefly allude to it. 
 
 You speak of the ratification of the treaty by the President 
 and Senate, and add that it does not appear to you that I had 
 any grounds of complaint because their opinion was at vari- 
 ance with mine. I submit that this is making an issue for me 
 which I have not made for myself In no part of my letter 
 will be found the slightest imputation upon the President or 
 Senate for the ratification of this treaty. I could not make 
 such an imputation, for the plain reason that I never censured 
 
 1 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 213 
 
 the ratification. I am under the impression that if I had had 
 a vote to give, I should have been found among the majority 
 upon that occasion. This, however, w^ould have been upon 
 tiie condition that some declaration should be annexed to the 
 act of ratification denouncing the pretension to search our 
 ships. I would then have sent the instrument to the British 
 government, and placed upon them the responsibility of its 
 final rejection or ratification ; and I am sure we should have 
 had the opinion of the world with us under such circumstances. 
 
 The rejection of a treaty duly negotiated is a serious ques- 
 tion ; to be avoided, whenever it can be without too great a 
 sacrifice. Though the national faith is not actually commit- 
 ted, still it is more or less engaged ; and there were peculiar 
 circumstances, growing out of long-standing difficulties, which 
 rendered an amicable agreement of the various matters in dis- 
 pute with England a subject of great national interest. But 
 the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics 
 are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, 
 and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent 
 and able senator, for " what it contains and what it omits." 
 This treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and neces- 
 sary stipulation, and therefore, as it seems to me, its negotia- 
 tion in this particular was unfortunate for the country. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg you to tender to the President my thanks 
 for the kind appreciation he made of my services in the letter 
 of recall, and to express to him my hope that, on a full consid- 
 eration of the circumstances, he will be satisfied that if my 
 course was not one he can approve, it, at all events, was such 
 as to relieve me from the charge of an improper interference 
 in a subject not within the sphere of my duties. 
 
 I must pray you, as an act of justice, to give the same pub- 
 licity to this letter that you may give to my letter of October 
 3d, and to your answer. 
 
 Very respectfully, &c., Lewis Cass. 
 
 Hon. Daxiel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, December 20, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Your letter of the 11th instant has been submitted to 
 the President. He directs me to say, in reply, that he contin- 
 ues to regard your correspondence, of which this letter is part, 
 as being quite irregular from the beginning. You had asked 
 leave to retire from your mission ; the leave was granted by 
 the President, with kind and friendly remarks upon the manner 
 in which you had discharged its duties. Having asked for this 
 honorable recall, which was promptly given, you afterward 
 addressed to this department your letter of the 3d of October, 
 
214 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 which, however it may appear to you, the President can not 
 but consider as a remonstrance, a protest against the treaty of 
 the 9th of August; in other words, an attack upon his admin- 
 istration for the negotiation and conclusion of that treaty. 
 He certainly was not prepared for this. It came upon him 
 with no small surprise, and he still feels that you must have 
 been, at the moment, under the influence of temporary impres- 
 sions which he can not but hope have, ere now, worn away. 
 
 A few remarks upon some of the points of your last letter 
 must now close the correspondence. 
 
 In the first place, you object to my having called your letter 
 of October 3d a " protest or remonstrance" against a transac- 
 tion of the government, and observe that you must have been 
 unhappy in the mode of expressing yourself, if you were liable 
 to this charge. 
 
 What other construction your letter will bear, I can not per- 
 ceive. The transaction was finished. No letter or remarks 
 of yourself, or any one else, could undo it, if desirable. Your 
 opinions were unsolicited. If given as a citizen, then it was al- 
 together unusual to address them to this department in an offi- 
 cial dispatch ; if as a public functionary, the whole subject- 
 matter was quite aside from the duties of your particular sta- 
 tion. In your letter you did not propose any thing to be done^ 
 but objected to what had been done. You did not suggest any 
 method of remedying what you were pleased to consider a de- 
 fect, but stated what you thought to be i-easons for fearing its 
 consequences. You declared that there had been, in your opin- 
 ion, an omission to assert American rights ; to which omission 
 you gave the department to understand that you would never 
 have consented. 
 
 In all this there is nothing but protest and remonstrance ; 
 and, though your letter be not formally entitled such, I can not 
 see that it can be construed, in effect, as any thing else ; and I 
 must continue to think, therefore, that the terms used are en- 
 tirely applicable and proper. 
 
 In the next place, you say, " You give me to understand that 
 the communications which have passed between us on this sub- 
 ject are to be published and submitted to the great tribunal of 
 public opinion." 
 
 It would have been better if you had quoted my remark with 
 entire correctness. What I said was, not that the communi- 
 cations which have passed between us are to he published, or 
 must be published, but that " it may become necessary hereaf- 
 ter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspond- 
 ence of the mission ; and, although it is not to be presumed 
 that you looked to such publication, because such a presump- 
 tion would impute to you a claim to put forth your private 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 215 
 
 opinions upon the conduct of the President and Senate, in a 
 transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form 
 of a public dispatch ; yet, if pubHshed, it can not be foreseen 
 how far England might hereafter rely on your authority for a 
 construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent 
 with the interest and honor of the United States." 
 
 In another part of your letter you observe, " The publication 
 of my letter, which is to produce this result, is to be the act of 
 the government, and not my act. But if the President should 
 think that the slightest injury to the public interest would en- 
 sue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried 
 in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
 dered harmless." 
 
 To this I have to remark, in the first place, that instances 
 have occurred in other times, not unknown to you, in which 
 highly important letters from ministers of the United States, 
 in Europe, to their own government, have found their way into 
 the newspapers of Europe, when that government itself held it 
 to be inconsistent with the interest of the United States to 
 make such letter public. 
 
 But it is hardly worth while to pursue a topic like this. 
 
 You are pleased to ask: " Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent 
 to receive all the communications of his government, and to 
 carry into effect their instructions sub silentio, whatever may 
 be his own sentiments in relation to them ; or is he not bound, 
 as a faithful representative, to communicate freely, but respect- 
 fully, his own views, that these may be considered, and receive 
 their due weight, in that particular case, or in other circum- 
 stances involving similar considerations ? It seems to me that 
 the bare enunciation of the principle is all that is necessary for 
 my justification. I am speaking now of the propriety of my 
 action, not of the manner in which it was performed. I may 
 have executed the task well or ill. I may have introduced top- 
 ics unadvisedly, and urged them indiscreetly. All this I leave 
 without remark. I am only endeavoring here to free myself 
 from the serious charge which you bring against me. If I 
 have misapprehended the duties of an American diplomatic 
 agent upon this subject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, 
 by a timely resignation, from a position in which my own self- 
 respect would not permit me to remain. And I may express 
 the conviction that there is no government, certainly none this 
 side of Constantinople, which would not encourage rather than 
 rebuke the free expression of the views of their representatives 
 in foreign countries." 
 
 I answer, certainly not. In the letter to which you were re- 
 plying, it was fully stated that, " in common with every other 
 citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to 
 
216 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 form opinions upon public transactions and the conduct of 
 public men. But it will hardly be thought to be among either 
 the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make 
 formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the 
 various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in 
 relation to which he himself has not been charged with any 
 duty, or partaken any responsibility." 
 
 You have not been requested to bestow your approbation 
 upon the treaty, however gratifying it would have been to the 
 President to see that, in that respect, you united with other 
 distinguished public agents abroad. Like all citizens of the re- 
 public, you are quite at liberty to exercise your own judgment 
 upon that as upon other transactions. But neither your ob- 
 servations nor this concession cover the case. They do not 
 show that, as a public minister abroad, it is a part of your offi- 
 cial functions, in a public dispatch, to remonstrate against the 
 conduct of the government at home in relation to a transac- 
 tion in which you bore no part, and for which you were in no 
 way answerable. The President and Senate must be permitted 
 to judge for themselves in a matter solely within their con- 
 trol. Nor do I know that, in complaining of your protest 
 against their proceedings in a case of this kind, any thing has 
 been done to warrant, on your part, an invidious and unjust 
 reference to Constantinople. If you could show, by the gen- 
 eral practice of diplomatic functionaries in the civilized part 
 of the world — and, more especially, if you could show by any 
 precedent drawn from the conduct of the many distinguished 
 men who have represented the government of the United 
 States abroad — that your letter of the 3d of October was, in 
 its general object, tone, and character, within the usual limits 
 of diplomatic correspondence, you may be quite assured that 
 the President would not have recourse to the code of Turkey 
 in order to find precedents the other way. 
 
 You complain that, in the letter from this department of the 
 14th of November, a statement contained in yours of the 3d 
 of October is called a tissue of mistakes, and you attempt to 
 show the impropriety of this appellation. Let the point be dis- 
 tinctly stated, and what you say in reply be then considered. 
 
 In your letter of October 3d you remark, "that England 
 then urged the United States to enter into a conventional ar- 
 rangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her 
 in measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Until then, 
 we had executed our own laws in our own way ; but, yielding 
 to this application, and departing from our former principle of 
 avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
 we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into ef- 
 fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
 ploy for that purpose." 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 217 
 
 The letter of this department of the 14th of November hav- 
 ing quoted this passage, proceeds to observe, that " the Presi- 
 dent can not conceive how you should have been led to adven- 
 ture upon such a statement as this. It is but a tissue of mis- 
 takes. England did not urge the United States to enter into 
 this conventional arrangement. The United States yielded to 
 no application from England. The proposition for abolishing 
 the slave trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an American 
 proposition ; it originated with the executive government of 
 the United States, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibil- 
 ity. It stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties 
 and accomplishing its objects. Nor have the United States de- 
 parted in the slightest degree from their former principles of 
 avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American ; 
 because the abolition of the African slave trade is an Ameri- 
 can subject as emphatically as it is a European subject, and, 
 indeed, more so, inasmuch as the government of the United 
 States took the first great step in declaring that trade unlaw- 
 ful, and in attempting its extinction. The abolition of this 
 traffic is an object of the highest interest to the American peo- 
 ple and the American government ; and you seem strangely to 
 have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly 
 thirty years ago, by the Treaty of Ghent, the United States 
 bound themselves, by solemn compact with England, to con- 
 tinue their efforts to promote its entire abolition ; both parties 
 pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeav- 
 ors to accomplish so desirable an object." 
 
 Now, in answer to this, you observe in your last letter, 
 " that the particular mode in which the governments should 
 act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested 
 by yourself, I never doubted. And if this is the construction 
 I am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no dif- 
 ficulty upon the subject. The questioiiv between us is un- 
 touched. All I said was, that England continued to prosecute 
 the matter ; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we 
 thereupon consented to its introduction. And if Lord Ashbur- 
 ton did not come out with instructions from his government to 
 endeavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the 
 world has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of 
 his mission, and I have misunderstood that paragraph in your 
 first note, when you say that Lord Ashburton comes with full 
 powers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion be- 
 tween England and the United States. But the very fact of 
 his coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respect- 
 ing the slave trade, is conclusive proof that his government 
 were desirous to obtain the co-operation of the United States. 
 I had supposed that our government would scarcely take the 
 
218 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 initiative in this matter, and urge it upon that of Great Britain, 
 either in Washington or in London. If it did so, I can only- 
 express my regret, and confess that I have been led inadvert- 
 ently into an error." 
 
 It would appear from all this, that that which, in your first 
 letter, appeared as a direct statement of facts, of which you 
 would naturally be presumed to have had knowledge, sinks at 
 last into inferences and conjectures. But, in attempting to es- 
 cape from some of the mistakes of this tissue, you have fallen 
 into others. "All I said was," you observe, "that England 
 continued to prosecute the matter ; that she presented it for 
 negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduc- 
 tion." Now the English minister no more presented this sub- 
 ject for negotiation than the government of the United States 
 presented it. Nor can it be said that the United States consent- 
 ed to its introduction in any other sense than it may be said that 
 the British minister consented to it. Will you be good enough 
 to review the series of your own assertions on this subject, and 
 see whether they can possibly be regarded merely as a state- 
 ment of your own inferences 1 Your only authentic fact is a 
 general one, that the British minister came clothed with full 
 power to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion. This, 
 you say, is conclusive proof that his government was desirous 
 to obtain the co-operation of the United States respecting the 
 slave trade ; and then you infer that England continued to 
 prosecute this matter, and presented it for negotiation, and that 
 the United States consented to its introduction ; and give to 
 this inference the shape of a direct statement of a fact. 
 
 You might have made the same remarks, and with the same 
 propriety, in relation to the subject of the " Creole," that of 
 impressment, the extradition of fugitive criminals, or any thing 
 else embraced in the treaty or in the correspondence, and then 
 have converted these inferences of your own into so many 
 facts. And it is upon conjectures like these, it is upon such in- 
 ferences of your own, that you made the direct and formal 
 statement in your letter of the 3d of October, that " England 
 then urged the United States to enter into a conventional ar- 
 rangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her 
 in measures for the suppression of the slave trade. Until then, 
 we had executed our laws in our own way ; but, yielding to 
 this application, and departing from our former principle of 
 avoiding European combinations upon subjects not American, 
 we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into ef- 
 fect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would em- 
 ploy for that purpose." 
 
 The President was well warranted, therefore, in requesting 
 vour serious reconsideration and review of that statement. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 219 
 
 Suppose your letter to go before the public unanswered and 
 uncontradicted ; suppose it to mingle itself with the general 
 political history of the country, as an official letter among the 
 archives of the Department of State, would not the general 
 mass of readers understand you as reciting facts, rather than 
 as drawing your own conclusions ? as stating history, rather 
 than as presenting an argument ? It is of an incorrect nar- 
 rative that the President complains. It is that, in your hotel 
 at Paris, you should undertake to write a history of a very del- 
 icate part of a negotiation carried on at Washington, with 
 which you had nothing to do, and of the history of which you 
 had no authentic information ; and which history, as you nar- 
 rate it, reflects not a little on the independence, wisdom, and 
 public spirit of the administration. 
 
 As of the history of this part of the negotiation you were not 
 well informed, the President can not but think it would have 
 been more just in you to have refrained from any attempt to 
 give an account of it. 
 
 You observe, further : " I never mentioned in my dispatch 
 to you, nor in any manner whatever, that our government had 
 conceded to that of England the right to search our ships. 
 That idea, however, pervades your letter, and is very appar- 
 ent in that part of it which brings to my observation the pos- 
 sible effect of my views upon the English government. But in 
 this you do me, though, I am sure, unintentionally, great injus- 
 tice. I repeatedly state, that the recent treaty leaves the rights 
 of the parties as it found them. My difficulty is not that we 
 have made a positive concession, but that we have acted un- 
 advisedly in not making the abandonment of this pretension a 
 previous condition to any conventional arrangement upon the 
 general subject." 
 
 On this part of your letter I must be allowed to make two 
 remarks : 
 
 The first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives no color or pretext 
 whatever to any right of searching our ships, a declaration 
 against such a right would have been no more suitable to this 
 treaty than a declaration against the right of sacking our towns 
 in time of peace, or any other outrage. 
 
 The rights of merchant vessels of the United States on the 
 high seas, as understood by this government, have been clearly 
 and fully asserted. As asserted, they will be maintained ; nor 
 would a declaration such as you propose have increased either 
 its resolution or its ability in this respect. The government 
 of the United States relies on its own power, and on the effect- 
 ive support of the people, to assert successfully all the rights 
 of all its citizens, on the sea as well as on the land ; and it asks 
 respect for these rights not as a boon or favor from any nation. 
 
220 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 The President's Message, most certainly, is a clear declaration 
 of what the country understands to be its rights, and his de- 
 termination to maintain them — not a mere promise to negotiate 
 for these rights, or to endeavor to bring other powers into an 
 acknowledgment of them, either express or implied. Where- 
 as, if I understand the meaning of this part of your letter, you 
 would have advised that something should have been offered 
 to England which she might have regarded as a benefit, but 
 coupled with such a declaration or condition as that, if she re- 
 ceived the boon, it would have been a recognition by her of a 
 claim which we make as matter of right. The President's 
 view of the proper duty of the government has certainly been 
 quite different. Being convinced that the doctrine asserted by 
 this government is the true doctrine of the law of nations, and 
 feeling the competency of the government to uphold and en- 
 force it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has 
 sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just 
 rights of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of 
 any power whatever. 
 
 The government thought no skillfully extorted promises nec- 
 essary in any such cases. It asks no such pledges of any na- 
 tion. If its character for ability and readiness to protect and 
 defend its own rights and dignity is not sufficient to preserve 
 them from violation, no interpolation of promise to respect 
 them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be likely to afford 
 such protection. And, as our rights and liberties depend for 
 existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague 
 protests are not likely to be more effectual than the Chinese 
 method of defending their towns, by painting grotesque and 
 hideous figures on the walls to fright away assailing foes. 
 
 My other remark on this portion of your letter is this : 
 
 Suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should 
 not be considered as sacrificing any American rights had been 
 appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to Great 
 Britain, as you propose ; and suppose that that government, 
 with equal ingenuity, had appended an equivalent written dec- 
 laration that it should not be considered as sacrificing any 
 British right, how much more defined would have been the 
 rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and 
 interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides ? 
 Or, in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, 
 balanced by an exactly equivalent protest on the other? 
 
 No nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what 
 justly belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some 
 good reason or adequate consideration, it does make such re- 
 linquishment ; and an unnecessary asseveration that it does not 
 intend to sacrifice just rights would seem only calculated to in- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 221 
 
 vite aggression. Such proclamations would seem better de- 
 vised for concealing weakness and apprehension, than for man- 
 ifesting conscious strength and self-reliance, or for inspiring 
 respect in others. 
 
 Toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe : 
 
 •' The rejection of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious ques- 
 tion, to be avoided whenever it can be without too great a sac- 
 rifice. Though the national faith is not actually committed, 
 still it is more or less engaged. And there were peculiar cir- 
 cumstances growing out of long-standing difficulties, which 
 rendered an amicable arrangement of the various matters in 
 dispute with England a subject of great national interest. But 
 the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics 
 are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, 
 and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent and 
 able senator, for ' what it contains and what it omits.' This 
 treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and necessary 
 stipulation ; and, therefore, as it seems to me, its negotiation, in 
 this particular, was unfortunate for the country." 
 
 The President directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the 
 Treaty of Washington no topics were omitted, and no topics in- 
 troduced, at the mere discretion of the negotiator ; that the ne- 
 gotiation proceeded from step to step, and from day to day, un- 
 der his own immediate supervision and direction ; that he him- 
 self takes the responsibility for what the treaty contains and 
 what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the whole to 
 the judgment of the country. 
 
 I now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by 
 repeating once more the expression of the President's regret 
 that you should have commenced it by your letter of the 3d of 
 October. 
 
 It is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. 
 He has a just appreciation of your character and your public 
 services- at home and abroad. He can not but persuade him- 
 self that you must be aware yourself, by this time, that your 
 letter of October was written under erroneous impressions, 
 and that there is no foundation for the opinions, respecting the 
 treaty, which it expresses ; and that it would have been far 
 better on all accounts if no such letter had been written. 
 
 I have, &c., Daniel Webster. 
 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., Late Minister of the United States at Paris. 
 
222 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, TRANSMITTING THE 
 TREATY OF WASHINGTON TO THE SENATE. 
 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the re- 
 sults of the negotiations recently had in this city with the 
 British minister special and extraordinary. 
 
 These results comprise : 
 
 1st. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the 
 territories of the United States and the possessions of her 
 Britannic majesty in North America, for the suppression of the 
 African slave trade, and the surrender of criminals, fugitive 
 from justice, in certain cases. 
 
 2d. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of 
 the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with Ameri- 
 can merchant vessels driven by stress of weather, or carried 
 by violence, into the ports of those colonies. 
 
 3d. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and de- 
 struction of the steam-boat Caroline. 
 
 4th. A correspondence on the subject of impressment. 
 
 If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it 
 will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long 
 subsisted between the two governments, has been the subject 
 of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has some- 
 times led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing 
 the existing peace. Both the United States and the states 
 more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of the 
 validity of the American title to all the territory which has 
 been in dispute ; but that title was controverted, and the gov- 
 ernment of the United States had agreed to make the dispute 
 a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually 
 had, but had failed to settle the controversy ; and it was found, 
 at the commencement of last year, that a correspondence had 
 been in progress between the two governm.ents for a joint 
 commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbi- 
 trator, with authority to make a final decision. That corre- 
 spondence, however, had been retarded by various occurren- 
 ces, and had come to no definite result when the special mis- 
 sion of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on 
 the part of England afforded, in the judgment of the execu- 
 tive, a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle 
 this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 223 
 
 without further reference to arbitration. It seemed entirely 
 proper that, if this purpose were entertained, consultation 
 should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and 
 Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are here- 
 with communicated, were addressed to the governors of those 
 states, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by 
 each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer 
 with the authorities of this government, on a line by agree- 
 ment or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. 
 This suggestion was met by both states in a spirit of candor 
 and patriotism, and promptly complied with. Four commis- 
 sioners on the part of Maine, and three on the part of Massa- 
 chusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were 
 duly appointed and commissioned, and lost no time in present- 
 ing themselves at the seat of the government of the United 
 States. These commissioners have been in correspondence 
 with this government during the period of the discussions ; 
 have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications ; have 
 aided the general object with their council and advice ; and, 
 in the end, have unanimously signified their assent to the line 
 proposed in the treaty. 
 
 Ordinarily, it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring 
 together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself diffi- 
 cult and perplexed ; but the efforts of the government, in at- 
 tempting to accomplish this desirable object, have been second- 
 ed and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation 
 on the part of the states concerned, to which much of the suc- 
 cess of these efforts is to be ascribed. 
 
 Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeast- 
 ern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and 
 Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the High- 
 lands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. 
 Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this charac- 
 ter has been matter of controversy, and is of some interest to 
 the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands 
 decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of 
 the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hamp- 
 shire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the 
 Highlands to the head of Hall's Stream, and thence down that 
 river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire, and es- 
 tablishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she 
 would have had by the decision of the King of the Nether- 
 lands. 
 
 By the treaty of 1783, the line is to proceed down the Con- 
 necticut River to the 45th degree of north latitude, and thence 
 west, by that parallel, till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent 
 examinations havinnr ascertained that the line heretofore re- 
 
224 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ceived as the true line of latitude between those points was 
 erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only 
 leave, on the British side, a considerable tract of territory 
 heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and 
 New York, but also Rouse's Point, the site of a military work 
 of the United States ; it has been regarded as an object of im- 
 portance, not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of 
 those states up to the line to which they have been considered 
 to extend, but also to comprehend Rouse's Point within the 
 territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the 
 British government of all the territory south of the line here- 
 tofore considered to be the true line, has been obtained ; and 
 the consideration for this relinquishment is to enure, by the 
 provisions of the treaty, to the States of Maine and Massa- 
 chusetts. 
 
 The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. 
 Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachu- 
 setts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent, and for con- 
 siderations satisfactory to them ; the chief of these considera- 
 tions being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agri- 
 cultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of 
 the St. John's and its tributaries down that river to the ocean, 
 free from imposition or disability. The importance of this 
 privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at pres- 
 ent by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable 
 hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon 
 which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided. 
 
 So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures 
 all that she requires ; and New York and Vermont are quieted 
 to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference 
 which would be made in the northern boundary of these two 
 states, by correcting the parallel of latitude, may be seen on 
 Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9. 
 
 From the intersection of the 45° of north latitude with the 
 St. Lawrence, and along that river and the lakes to the water 
 communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, the 
 line was definitely agreed on by the commissioners of the two 
 governments, under the 6th article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 But between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the 
 Wood, the commissioners acting under the 7th article of that 
 treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore 
 made no joint report to their respective governments. The 
 first of these was Sugar Island, or St. George's Island, lying in 
 St. Mary's River, or the water communication between Lakes 
 Huron and Superior. By the present treaty this island is em- 
 braced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil 
 and position, it is regarded as of much value. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 225 
 
 Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the 
 line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north 
 of Isle Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. 
 The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du 
 Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence, by the 
 River St. Louis, to the Rainy Lake. The American commis- 
 sioner supposed the true course to be, to proceed by way of 
 the Dog River. Attempts were made to compromise this dif- 
 ference, but without success. The details of these proceed- 
 ings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the 
 commissioners. 
 
 From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at 
 the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that 
 treaty do not harmonize with its natural features, as now as- 
 certained. " Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that 
 name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet 
 of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of 
 Pigeon River. The present treaty, therefore, adopts that es- 
 tuary and river, and afterward pursues the usual route, across 
 the height of land by the various portages and small lakes, till 
 the line reaches Rainy Lake ; from which the commissioners 
 agreed on the extension of it to its termination, in the north- 
 west angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country 
 on and near the shore of the lake, between Pigeon River on 
 the north, and Fond du Lac and the River St. Louis on the 
 south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is 
 thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory 
 of four millions of acres, northward of the claim set up by the 
 British commissioner under the Treaty of Ghent. From the 
 height of land at the head of Pigeon River, westerly to the 
 Rainy Lake, the country is understood to be of little value, 
 being described by surveyors, and marked on the map, as a 
 region of rock and water. 
 
 From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which 
 is found to be in latitude 45° 23' 55" north, existing treaties 
 require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the 
 45th parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky 
 Mountains. 
 
 After sundry informal communications with the British min- 
 ister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to ter- 
 ritory west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was 
 found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at 
 present that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the 
 subjects of formal negotiation, to be entered upon between this 
 government and the British minister, as part of his duties under 
 his special mission. 
 
 By the treaty of 1783, the line of division along the rivers 
 
 P 
 
226 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 and lakes, from the place where the 45th parallel of north lati- 
 tude strikes the St. Lawrence, to the outlet of Lake Superior, is 
 invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, 
 and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a 
 line, if extended according to the literal terms of the treaty, 
 would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect islands. The man- 
 ner in which the commissioners of the two governments dealt 
 with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But 
 where the line, thus following the middle of the river, or water 
 course, did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes 
 to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on 
 one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use 
 of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries. 
 
 It has happened, therefore, in a few instances, that the use of 
 the river, in particular places, would be greatly diminished to 
 one party or the other, if, in fact, there was not a choice in the 
 use of channels and passages. Thus, at the Long Sault, in 
 the St. Lawrence, a dangerous passage, practicable only for 
 boats, the only safe run is between the Long Sault Islands and 
 Barnhart's Island, all which belong to the United States on one 
 side, and the American shore on the other. On the other 
 hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of wa- 
 ter, from Lake Erie into the Detroit River, is between Bois 
 Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So, again, 
 there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of 
 facility and usefulness, between several islands in the River 
 St. Clair, at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In 
 these three cases, the treaty provides that all the several pas- 
 sages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the cit- 
 izens and subjects of both parties. 
 
 The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries 
 for the suppression of the African slave trade, and the com- 
 plaints made to this government within the last three or four 
 years, many of them but too well founded, of the visitation, seiz- 
 ure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by Brit- 
 ish cruisers, could not but form a delicate and highly import- 
 ant part of the negotiations which have now been held. 
 
 The early and prominent part which the government of 
 the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful 
 and mhuman traffic, is well known. By the tenth article of 
 the Treaty of Ghent, it is declared that the traffic in slaves 
 is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, 
 and that both his majesty and the United States are desirous 
 of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition ; and 
 it is thereby agi-eed that both the contracting parties shall use 
 their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. 
 The government of the United States has, by law, declared 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 227 
 
 the African slave trade piracy ; and at its suggestion otiier na- 
 tions have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting 
 in honest and zealous efforts, made in conformity v^^ith the 
 wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire aboli- 
 tion of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast ; but these 
 efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end 
 have proved, to a considerable degree, unsuccessful. Treaties 
 are known to have been entered into some years ago between 
 England and France, by which the former power, which usu- 
 ally maintains a large naval force on the African station, was 
 authorized to seize, and bring in for adjudication, vessels found 
 engaged in the slave trade under the French flag. 
 
 It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in 
 London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, 
 Prussia, and Austria, having for its professed object a sti'ong 
 and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. 
 This treaty was not officially communicated to the govern- 
 ment of the United States, but its provisions and stipulations 
 are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is un- 
 derstood to be not yet ratified on the part of France. 
 
 No application or request has been made to this government 
 to become party to this treaty ; but the course it might take 
 in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and 
 discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded, 
 and the stipulations which it contains, have caused warm ani- 
 madversions and great political excitement. 
 
 In my message at the commencement of the present session 
 of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which this 
 government supports respecting the right of search and the 
 immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles 
 fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfill- 
 ed, I have thought it most consistent with the honor and dig- 
 nity of the country, that it should execute its own laws, and per- 
 form its own obligations, by its own means and its own power. 
 The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one na- 
 tion by the cruisers of another, for any purpose, except those 
 known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under what- 
 ever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to 
 dangerous results. It is far better, by other means, to super- 
 sede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examina- 
 tion or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed 
 cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point 
 of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. 
 It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accord- 
 ance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent, but at the 
 same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for vio- 
 lating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as 
 
228 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into 
 the articles now submitted to the Senate. 
 
 The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no altera- 
 tion, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of na- 
 tions. It provides simply that each of the two governments 
 shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to 
 enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and ob- 
 ligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave 
 trade. 
 
 Another consideration of great importance has recommended 
 this mode of fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. 
 Our commerce along the western coast of Africa is extensive, 
 and supposed to be increasing. There is reason to think that, 
 in many cases, those engaged in it have met with interruptions 
 and annoyances, caused by the jealousy and instigation of ri- 
 vals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this sub- 
 ject have reached the government. A respectable naval force 
 on the coast is the natural resort and security against further 
 occurrences of this kind. 
 
 The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed 
 high crimes, seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring 
 nation, would seem to be an act due to the cause of general 
 justice, and properly belonging to the present state of civiliza- 
 tion and intercourse. The British provinces of North Ameri- 
 ca are separated from the states of the Union by a line of 
 several thousand miles ; and along portions of this line the 
 amount of population on either side is quite considerable, 
 while the passage of the boundary is always easy. 
 
 Offenders against the law, on the one side, transfer them- 
 selves to the othea'. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are 
 brought to justice, but very often they wholly escape. A con- 
 sciousness of immunity, from the power of avoiding justice in 
 this way, instigates the unprincipled and reckless to the com- 
 mission of offenses ; and the peace and good neighborhood of 
 the border are consequently often disturbed. 
 
 In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United 
 States, the governors of states are often applied to for their 
 surrender; and questions of a very embarrassing nature arise 
 from these applications. It has been thought highly import- 
 ant, therefore, to provide for the whole case by a proper treaty 
 stipulation. The article on the subject in the proposed treaty 
 is carefully confined to such offenses as all mankind agree to 
 regard as heinous, and destructive of the security of life and 
 property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes, 
 the object has been to exclude all political offenses, or criminal 
 charges, arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, 
 misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and 
 other offenses of similar character, are excluded. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 229 
 
 And, lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse 
 should arise from the stipulation, rendering its continuance, in 
 the opinion of one or both of the parties, not longer desirable, 
 it is left in the power of either to put an end to it at will. 
 
 The destruction of the steam-boat Caroline at Schlosser, 
 four or five years ago, occasioned no small degree of excite- 
 ment at the time, and became the subject of correspondence 
 between the two governments. That correspondence having 
 been suspended for a considerable period, was renewed in the 
 spring of the last year, but, no satisfactory result having been 
 arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence had 
 ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it on the 
 present occasion. It has only been so far discussed, in the cor- 
 respondence now submitted, as it was accomplished by a vio- 
 lation of the territory of the United States. The letter of the 
 British minister, while he attempts to justify that violation upon 
 the ground of a pressing and overruling necessity, admitting, 
 nevertheless, that, even if justifiable, an apology was due for it, 
 and accompanying this acknowledgment with assurances of 
 the sacred regard of his government for the inviolability of na- 
 tional territory, has seemed to me sufficient to warrant forbear- 
 ance from any further remonstrance against what took place, 
 as an aggression on the soil and territory of the country. 
 
 On the subject of the interference of the British authorities 
 in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the 
 correspondence which has taken place, showing the grounds 
 taken by this government, and the engagements entered into 
 by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the 
 just expectation of the people of the United States. 
 
 The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this 
 country by British cruisers, although not practiced in time of 
 peace, and, therefore, not at present a productive cause of dif- 
 ference and irritation, has, nevertheless, hitherto been so prom- 
 inent a topic of controversy, and is so likely to bring on re- 
 newed contentions at the first breaking out of an European 
 war, that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take 
 it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the 
 Secretary of State to the British minislsr explains the grounds 
 which the government has assumed, and the principles which 
 it means to uphold. For the defense of these grounds, and the 
 maintenance of these principles, the most perfect reliance is 
 placed on the intelligence of the American people, and on their 
 firmness and patriotism, in whatever touches the honor of the 
 country, or its great and essential interest. 
 
 John Tyler. 
 
 Washington, August 11, 18-12. 
 
230 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 [a PKOCLAMATION.] 
 
 Whereas, a treaty between the United States of America and 
 her majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, was concluded and signed by their plen- 
 ipotentiaries, at Washington, on the ninth day of August, 
 one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, which treaty is, 
 word for word, as follows : 
 
 A Treaty to settle and define the Boundaries between the Territo- 
 ries of the United States and the Possessions of her Britannic 
 Majesty in North America : For the final Suppression of the 
 African Slave Trade ; and for the giving up of Criminals, 
 fugitive from Justice, in certain Cases. 
 
 Whereas, certain portions of the line of boundary between 
 the United States of America and the British dominions in 
 North America, described in the second article of the Treaty 
 of Peace of 1783, have not yet been ascertained and determ- 
 ined, notwithstanding the repeated attempts which have been 
 heretofore made for that purpose ; and whereas, it is now 
 thought to be for the interest of both parties that, avoiding 
 further discussion of their respective rights arising in this re- 
 spect under the said treaty, they should agree on a convention- 
 al line in said portions of the said boundary, such as may be 
 convenient to both parties, with such equivalents and com- 
 pensations as are deemed just and reasonable ; and whereas, 
 by the treaty concluded at Ghent, on the 24th day of Decem- 
 ber, 1814, between the United States and his Britannic majes- 
 ty, an article was agreed to and inserted, of the following tenor, 
 viz.: "Article 10. Whereas the traffic in slaves is irrecon- 
 cilable with the principles of humanity and justice ; and 
 whereas, both his majesty and the United States are desirous 
 of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is 
 hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their 
 best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object ;" and 
 whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have at various times 
 been passed by the two governments, and the efforts made to 
 suppress it, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried 
 on ; and whereas, the United States of America and her majesty, 
 the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 are determined that, so far as may be in their power, it shall 
 be effectually abolished ; and whereas, it is found expedient 
 for the better administration of justice, and the prevention of 
 crime within the territories and jurisdiction of the two parties, 
 respectively, that persons committing the crimes hereinafter 
 enumerated, and being fugitives from justice, should, under 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 231 
 
 certain circumstances, be reciprocally delivered up : the Unit- 
 ed States of America and her Britannic majesty, having re- 
 solved to treat on these several subjects, have for that pur- 
 pose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries to negotiate 
 and conclude a treaty ; that is to say : the President of the 
 United States has, on his part, furnished with full powers Dan- 
 iel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States ; and her 
 majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, has, on her part, appointed the Right Honorable 
 Alexander Lord Ashburton, a peer of the said United King- 
 dom, a member of her majesty's most honorable privy counsel, 
 and her majesty's minister plenipotentiary on a special mission 
 to the United States, who, after a reciprocal communication of 
 their respective full powers, have agreed to and signed the fol- 
 lowing articles : 
 
 Article I. 
 
 It is hereby agreed and declared that the line of boundary 
 shall be as follows : Beginning at the monument at the source 
 of the River St. Croix, as designated and agreed to by the 
 commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, 
 between the governments of the United States and Great Brit- 
 ian ; thence north, following the exploring line run and marked 
 by the surveyors of the two governments in the years 1817 
 and 1818, under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, to its 
 intersection with the River St. John, and to the middle of the 
 channel thereof; thence up the middle of the main channel of 
 the said River St. John to the mouth of the River St. Francis ; 
 thence up the middle of the channel of the said River St. 
 Francis, and of the lakes through which it flows, to the outlet of 
 the Lake Pohenagamook ; thence, southwesterly, in a straight 
 line to a point on the northwest branch of the River St. John, 
 which point shall be ten miles distant Irom the main branch of 
 the St. John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but 
 if the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles 
 from the nearest point of the summit, or crest, of the Highlands 
 that divide those rivers which empty themselves into the Riv- 
 er St. Lawrence from those which fall into the River St. John, 
 then the said point shall be made to recede down the said 
 northwest branch of the River St. John, to a point seven miles 
 in a straight line from the said summit or crest ; thence in a 
 straight Ime, in a course about south, eight degrees west, to 
 the point where the parallel of latitude of 46 degrees 25 min- 
 utes north intersects the southwest branch of the St. John's ; 
 thence, southerly, by the said branch, to the source thereof in 
 the Highlands, at the Metjarmette Portage ; thence down 
 along the said Highlands which divide the waters which emp- 
 
232 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which 
 fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's Stream ; 
 thence down the middle of said stream, till the line thus run 
 intersects the only line of boundary surveyed and marked by 
 Valentine and Collins previously to the year 1774, as the 45th 
 degree of north latitude, and which has been known and un- 
 derstood to be the line of actual division between the States of 
 New York and Vermont on one side, and the British province 
 of Canada on the other ; and from said point of intersection, 
 west, along the said dividing-line, as heretofore known and 
 understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River. 
 
 Article IL 
 
 It is, moreover, agreed that from the place where the joint 
 commissioners terminated their labors under the sixth article 
 of the Treaty of Ghent, to wit : at a point in the Neebish 
 Channel, near Muddy Lake, the line shall run into and along 
 the ship-channel between St. Joseph's and St. Tammany Isl- 
 ands, to the division of the channel at or near the head of St. 
 Joseph's Island ; thence, turning eastwardly and northwardly, 
 around the lower end of St. George's or Sugar Island, and fol- 
 lowing the middle of the channel which divides St. George's 
 from St. Joseph's Island ; thence up the east Neebish Channel, 
 nearest to St. George's Island, through the middle of Lake 
 George ; thence, west of Jonas's Island, into St. Mary's River, 
 to a point in the middle of that river, about one mile above St. 
 George's or Sugar Island, so as to appropriate and assign the 
 said island to the United States ; thence, adopting the line 
 traced on the maps by the commissioners, through the River 
 St. Mary and Lake Superior, to a point north of He Royale, 
 in said lake, one hundred yards to the north and east of He 
 Chapeau, which last-mentioned island lies near the northeast- 
 ern point of He Royale, where the line marked by the com- 
 missioners terminates ; and from the last-mentioned point, 
 southwesterly, through the middle of the sound between He 
 Royale and the northwestern main-land, to the mouth of Pig- 
 eon River, and up the said river to and through the North and 
 South Fowl Lakes, to the lakes of the height of land between 
 Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the 
 water communication to Lake Saisaginaga, and through that 
 lake ; thence to and through Cypress Lake, Lac du Bois 
 Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and Lake Nam- 
 ecan, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, or streams 
 connecting the lakes here mentioned, to that point in Lac la 
 Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudiere Falls, from which the 
 commissioners traced the line to the most northwestern point 
 of the Lake of the Woods ; thence along the said line to the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 233 
 
 said most northwestern point, being in latitude 49 degrees, 23 
 minutes, 55 seconds north, and in longitude 95 degrees, 14 
 minute, 38 seconds west from the observatory at Greenwich ; 
 thence, according to existing treaties, due south, to its inter- 
 section with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that 
 parallel to the Rocky Mountains ; it being understood that all 
 the water communications, and all the usual portages along 
 the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, and 
 also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the 
 Pigeon River, as now actually used, shall be free and open to 
 the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 In order to promote the interests and encourage the indus- 
 try of all the inhabitants of the countries watered by the River 
 St. John and its tributaries, whether living within the State 
 of Maine or the province of New Brunswick, it is agreed that 
 where, by the provisions of the present treaty, the River St. 
 John is declared to be the line of boundary, the navigation 
 of the said river shall be free and open to both parties, and 
 shall in no way be obstructed by either ; that all the produce 
 of the forest in logs, lumber, timber, boards, staves, or shingles, 
 or of agriculture, not being manufactured, grown on any of 
 those parts of the State of Maine watered by the River St. 
 John, or by its tributaries, of which fact reasonable evidence 
 shall, if required, be produced, shall have free access into and 
 through the said river and its said tributaries, having their 
 source within the State of Maine, to and from the sea-port at 
 the mouth of the said River St. John, and to and round the 
 falls of the said river, either by boats, rafts, or other convey- 
 ance ; that when within the province of New Brunswick, the 
 said produce shall be dealt with as if it were the produce of the 
 said province : that in like manner the inhabitants of the terri- 
 tory of the Upper St. John, determined by this treaty to be- 
 long to her Britannic majesty, shall have free access to and 
 through the river for their produce, in those parts where the 
 said nver runs wholly through the State of Maine : Provided 
 always, That this agreement shall give no right to either party 
 to interfere with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms 
 of this treaty which the governments, respectively, of Maine or 
 of New Brunswick may make respecting the navigation of the 
 said river, where both banks thereof shall belong to the same 
 party. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 All grants of lands heretofore made by either party, within 
 the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the 
 
231 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified, and 
 confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants, to 
 the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen 
 within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were 
 made: and all equitable possessory claims, arising from a pos- 
 session and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the 
 person actually in possession, or by those under whom such 
 person claims, for more than six years before the date of this 
 treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed valid, and be confirm- 
 ed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto, of 
 the title to such lot or parcel of land, so described as best to 
 include the improvements made thereon ; and in all other re- 
 spects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most 
 liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling 
 upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has here- 
 tofore been in dispute between them. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 Whereas, in the course of the controversy respecting the 
 disputed territory on the northeastern boundary, some moneys 
 have been received by the authorities of her Britannic majes- 
 ty's province of New Brunswick, with the intention of pre- 
 venting depredations on the forests of the said territory, which 
 moneys were to be carried to a fund, called the " Disputed Ter- 
 ritory Fund," the proceeds whereof, it was agreed, should be 
 hereafter paid over to the parties interested, in the proportions 
 to be determined by a final settlement of boundaries : it is 
 hereby agreed, that a correct account of all receipts and pay- 
 ments on the said fund shall be delivered to the government 
 of the United States, within six months after the ratification of 
 this treaty ; and the proportion of the amount due thereon to 
 the States of Maine and Massachusetts, and any bonds or se- 
 curities appertaining thereto, shall be paid and delivered over 
 to the government of the United States ; and the government 
 of the United States agrees to receive for the use of, and pay 
 over to, the States of Maine and Massachusetts, their respective 
 portions of said fund ; and further, to pay and satisfy said 
 states, respectively, for all claims for expenses incurred by 
 them in protecting the said heretofore disputed territory, and 
 making a survey thereof in 1838; the government of the 
 United States agreeing with the States of Maine and Massa- 
 chusetts to pay them the further sum of three hundred thousand 
 dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line 
 of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of 
 the conditions and equivalents received therefor, fz'om the gov- 
 ernment of her Britannic majesty. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 235 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 It is furthermore understood and agreed, that for the pur- 
 pose of running and tracing those parts of the hne between the 
 source of the St. Croix and the St. Lawrence River, which will 
 require to be run and ascertained, and for marking the residue 
 of said line by proper monuments on the land, two commis- 
 sioners shall be appointed, one by the President of the United 
 States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate there- 
 of, and one by her Britannic majesty; and the said commis- 
 sioners shall meet at Bangor, in the State of Maine, on the first 
 day of May next, or as soon thereafter as may be, and shall 
 proceed to mark the line above described, from the source of 
 the St. Croix to the River St. John ; and shall trace on proper 
 maps the dividing line along said river, and along the River 
 St. Francis, to the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook ; and from 
 the outlet of the said lake they shall ascertain, fix, and mark, 
 by proper and durable monuments on the land, the line de- 
 scribed in the first article of this treaty ; and the said commis- 
 sioners shall make to each of their respective governments a 
 joint report or declaration, under their hands and seals, desig- 
 nating such line of boundary, and shall accompany such report 
 or declaration with maps certified by them to be true maps of 
 the new boundary. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 It is further agreed, that the channels in the River St. Law- 
 rence, on both sides of the Long Sault Islands, and of Barn- 
 hart Island; the channels in the River Detroit, on both sides 
 of the Island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both 
 the American and Canadian shores ; and all the several chan- 
 nels and passages between the various islands lying near the 
 junction of the River St. Clair, with the lake of that name, shall 
 be equally free and open to the ships, vessels, and boats of both 
 parties. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 The parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, 
 and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and 
 adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable num- 
 bers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, 
 to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and 
 obligations of each of the two countries, for the suppression of 
 the slave trade ; the said squadrons to be independent of each 
 other, but the two governments stipulating, nevertheless, to 
 give such orders to the officers commanding their respective 
 forces, as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert 
 
236 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may 
 arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; cop- 
 ies of all such orders to be communicated by each government 
 to the other, respectively. 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which may be made 
 on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave trade, the fa- 
 cilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding the vigilance 
 of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and other means, are 
 so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a market 
 can be found for slaves, so strong, as that the desired result 
 may be long delayed, unless all markets be shut against the 
 purchase of African negroes, the parties to this treaty agree 
 that they will unite in all becoming representations and remon- 
 strances with any and all powers within whose dominions such 
 markets are allowed to exist ; and that they will urge upon all 
 such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets 
 effectually, at once and forever. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 It is agreed that the United States and her Britannic majes- 
 ty shall, upon mutual requisitions by them, or their ministers, of- 
 ficers, or authorities, respectively made, deliver up to justice all 
 persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or as- 
 sault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or rob- 
 bery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged papers, committed 
 within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum, or shall 
 be found, within the territories of the other : provided, that this 
 shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, ac- 
 cording to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person 
 so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and 
 commitment for trial, if the crime or offense had there been 
 committed ; and the respective judges and other magistrates 
 of the two governments shall have power, jurisdiction, and au- 
 thority, upon complaint made under oath, to issue a warrant 
 for the apprehension of the fugitive or person so charged, that 
 he may be brought before such judges or other magistrates, 
 respectively, to the end that the evidence of criminality may 
 be heard and considered ; and if, on such hearing, the evi- 
 dence be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the 
 duty of the examining judge or magistrate to certify the same 
 to the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for 
 the surrender of such fugitive. The expense of such appre- 
 hension and delivery shall be borne and defrayed by the party 
 who makes the requisition and receives the fugitive. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 237 
 
 Article XL 
 
 The eighth article of this treaty shall be in force for five 
 years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, and 
 afterward until one or the other party shall signify a wish to 
 terminate it. The tenth article shall continue in force until 
 one or the other of the parties shall signify its wish to termin- 
 ate it, and no longer. 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 The present treaty shall be duly ratified, and the mutual ex- 
 change of ratifications shall take place in London, within six 
 months from the date hereof, or earlier, if possible. 
 
 In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have 
 signed this treaty, and have hereunto affixed our seals. 
 
 Done, in duplicate, at Washington, the ninth day of August, 
 anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. 
 
 Danl. Webster, [seal.] 
 Ashburton. [seal.] 
 
 And, whereas, the said treaty has been duly ratified on both 
 parts, and the respective ratifications of the same having been 
 exchanged, to wit, at London, on the thirteenth day of Octo- 
 ber, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, by Edward 
 Everett, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 of the United States, and the Right Honorable the Earl of Ab- 
 erdeen, her Britannic majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for Foreign AflTairs, on the part of their respective govern- 
 ments : 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known, that I, John Tyler, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty 
 to be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause 
 and article thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good 
 faith by the United States and the citizens thereof In witness 
 FT '^1 whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused 
 *- ' '-• the seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of November, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 two, and of the Independence of the United States the sixty- 
 seventh. John Tyler. 
 
 By the President : 
 Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
238 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 VOTE OF THE SENATE ON THE FINAL QUESTION 
 OF RATIFICATION, &c. 
 
 The treaty having been communicated to the Senate by the 
 President of the United States, by message of the 11th of Au- 
 gust, 1842, was referred, on motion of Mr. Rives, to the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Relations, of which committee Mr. Rives was 
 chairman ; it was reported from the committee without amend- 
 ment on Monday, the 15th of August, and made the order of the 
 day for Wednesday, the 17th, on which last day it was called up 
 and discussed, as well as on the 19th and 20th. Several propo- 
 sitions to amend having been made and rejected, Mr. Rives, on 
 the day last mentioned, submitted the following resolution : 
 
 Resohed (two thirds of the senators present concurring). 
 That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the 
 treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territo- 
 ries of the United States and the possessions of her Britannic 
 majesty in North America ; for the final suppression of the Af- 
 rican slave trade ; and for the giving up of criminals fugitive 
 from justice, in certain cases. 
 
 The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider 
 the said resolution. On the question to agree thereto, it was 
 determined in the affirmative, Yeas 39, Nays 9. 
 
 Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs Archer, Bar- 
 row, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Crafts, 
 Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Hender- 
 son, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, More- 
 head, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of 
 Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan, Walker, White, Wood- 
 bridge, Woodbury, Wright, Young. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Allen, Bagby, 
 Benton, Buchanan, Conrad, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Stur- 
 geon, Williams. 
 
 So the said resolution was agreed to. 
 
 Ordered, That the Secretary lay the said resolution before 
 the President of the United States. 
 
 The bill for carrying into effect the Treaty of Washington 
 passed the House of Representatives on the 28th of February, 
 1843, by a vote of 137 Yeas to 40 Nays, and the Senate on the 
 2d of March, without a division, having been reported from the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations by Mr. Archer, then chairman 
 of that committee, without amendment. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 239 
 
 MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE 
 UNITED STATES, APRIL, 1846, IN VINDICATION 
 OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF 1842. 
 
 It is altogether unexpected to me, Mr. President, to find it 
 to be my duty here, and at this time, to defend the Treaty of 
 Washington of 1842, and the correspondence accompanying 
 the negotiation of that treaty. It is a past transaction. Four 
 years have almost elapsed since the treaty received the sanc- 
 tion of the Senate and became the law of the land. While 
 before the Senate, it was discussed with much earnestness and 
 very great ability. For its ratification, it received the votes 
 of five sixths of the whole Senate : a greater majority, I be- 
 lieve I may say, than was ever before found for any disputed 
 treaty. From that day to this, although I had had a hand in the 
 negotiation of the treaty, and felt it to be a transaction with 
 which my own reputation was intimately connected, I have 
 been willing to leave it to the judgment of the country. There 
 were, it is true, sir, some things of which I have not complain- 
 ed, and do not complain, but which, nevertheless, were sub- 
 jects of regret. The papers accompanying the treaty were vo- 
 luminous. Their publication was long delayed, waiting for 
 the exchange of ratifications ; and, when finally published, they 
 were not distributed to any great extent, or in large numbers. 
 The treaty, meantime, got before the public surreptitiously, 
 and, with the documents, came out by piece-meal. We know 
 that it is unhappily true that, away from the large commercial 
 cities of the Atlantic coast, there are few of the public prints 
 of the country which publish official papers on such an occa- 
 sion, at large. I might have felt a natural desire that the treaty 
 and the correspondence could have been known and read by 
 every one of my fellow-citizens, from east to west, and from 
 north to south. Indeed, I did feel such desire. But it was im- 
 possible. Nevertheless, in returning to the Senate again, noth- 
 ing was further from my purpose than to renew the discussion 
 of any of the topics discussed and settled at that time ; and 
 nothing further from my expectation than to be called upon, by 
 any sense of duty to my own reputation and to truth, to make, 
 now, any observations upon the treaty or the correspondence. 
 But it has so happened that, in the debate on the Oregon 
 question, the treaty, and, I believe, every article of it, and the 
 correspondence accompanying the negotiation of that treaty, 
 and, I believe, every part of that correspondence, have been the 
 subject of disparaging, disapproving, sometimes contumelious 
 
240 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 remarks, in one or the other of the houses of Congress. Now, 
 with all my indisposition to revive past transactions and make 
 them the topics of debate here, and satisfied, and, indeed, highly 
 gratified with the approbation so very generally expressed by 
 the country, at the time and ever since, I suppose that it could 
 hardly have been expected, nevertheless, by any body, that I 
 should sit here from day to day, through the debate, and through 
 the session, hearing statements entirely errroneous as to matters 
 of fact, and deductions from these supposed facts quite as erro- 
 neous, all tending to produce unfavorable impressions respect- 
 ing the treaty, and the correspondence, and every body who 
 had a hand in it: I say, it could hardly have been expected by 
 any one that I should sit here and hear all this, and keep my 
 peace. The country knows that I am here. It knows what I 
 have heard, again and again, from day to day; and if state- 
 ments of foct, wholly incorrect, are made here, in my hearing 
 and in my presence, without reply or answer from me, why, 
 shall we not hear in all the contests of party and elections here- 
 after, that this is a fact, and that is a fact, because it has been 
 stated where and when an answer could be given, or a denial 
 made, and no answer was given, and no denial made ? It is my 
 purpose, therefore, to give an answer here, and now, to what- 
 ever has been alleged against the treaty or the correspondence. 
 Mr. President, in the negotiation of 1842, and in the corre- 
 spondence, I acted as Secretary of State, under the direction, 
 of course, of the President of the United States. But, sir, in 
 matters of high importance, I shrink not from the responsibil- 
 ity of any thing I have ever done, under any man's direction. 
 Wherever my name stands I am ready to answer to it, and 
 to defend that with which it is connected. I am here to-day 
 to take upon myself, without disrespect to the chief magis- 
 trate under whose direction I acted, and for the purposes of 
 this discussion, the whole responsibility of every thing that has 
 my name connected with it in the negotiation and correspond- 
 ence. Sir, the Treaty of Washington was not entered into to 
 settle any — or altogether for the purpose of settling any — new 
 arising questions. The matters embraced in that treaty, and 
 in the correspondence accompanying it, had been interesting 
 subjects in our foreign relations for fifty years — unsettled for 
 fifty years — agitating and annoying the councils of the coun- 
 try, and threatening to disturb its peace, for fifty years. And 
 my first duty, then, in entering upon such remarks as I think 
 the occasion calls for in regard to one and all of these topics, 
 will be to treat the subjects, in the first place, historically ; to 
 show when each arose; what has been its progress in the dip- 
 lomatic history of the country ; and especially to show in what 
 posture each of those important subjects stood at the time 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 241 
 
 when William Henry Harrison acceded to the office of Presi- 
 dent of the United States. This is my purpose. I do not in- 
 tend to enter upon any crimination of gentlemen who have 
 filled important situations in the executive government in the 
 earlier, or in the more recent, history of the country ; but I 
 intend to show, in the progress of this discussion, the actual 
 position in which things were left in regard to the topics em- 
 braced by the treaty, and the correspondence attending the ne- 
 gotiation of it, when the executive government devolved upon 
 General Harrison, and his immediate successor, Mr. Tyler. 
 
 Now, sir, the first of these topics is the question of the north- 
 eastern boundary of the United States. The general history 
 of that question, from the peace of 1783 to this time, is known 
 to all public men, of course, and pretty well understood by the- 
 great mass of well-informed persons throughout the country. 
 1 shall state it brietiy. 
 
 In the Treaty of Peace of September, 1783, the northern 
 and eastern, or, perhaps, more properly speaking, the north- 
 eastern boundary of the United States, is thus described, viz. : 
 
 " From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which is formed by 
 a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix River to the Highlands ; 
 along the said Highlands, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into 
 the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwest- 
 enimost head of Connecticut River ; thence along the middle of that river to the 
 forty-fifth degree of noi-th latitude; from thence, by a line due west on said lati- 
 tude, until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy ; east by a line to be drawn 
 along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, to 
 its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands." 
 
 Such is the description of the northeastern boundary of the 
 United States, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783. And 
 it is quite remarkable that so many embarrassing questions 
 should have arisen from these few lines, and have been matters 
 of controversy for more than half a century. 
 
 The first disputed question was," Which, of the several riv- 
 ers running into the Bay of Fundy, is the St. Croix, mentioned 
 in the treaty?" It is singular that this should be matte'r of dis- 
 pute, but so it was. England insisted the true St. Croix was 
 one river ; the United States insisted it was another. 
 
 The second controverted question was, " Where is the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia to be found ?" 
 
 The third, " What and where are the Highlands, along which 
 the line is to run, from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to 
 the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River ?" 
 
 The fourth, " Of the several streams which, flowing togeth- 
 er, make up Connecticut River, which is that stream which 
 ought to be regarded as its northwesternmost head ?" 
 
 The fifth was, " Are the rivers which discharge their waters 
 into the Bay of Fundy, rivers 'which fall into the Atlantic 
 Ocean,' in the sense of the terms used in the treaty ?" 
 
 Q 
 
242 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 The 5th article of the treaty between the United States and 
 Great Britain, of the 19th of November, 1794, after reciting 
 that " doubts had arisen what river was truly intended under 
 the name of the River St. Croix," proceeded to provide for the 
 decision of that question by three commissioners, one to be ap- 
 pointed by each government, and these two to choose a third; 
 or, if they could not agree, then each to make his nomination, 
 and decide the choice by lot. The two commissioners agreed 
 on a third ; the three executed the duty assigned them, decided 
 what river was the true St. Croix, traced it to its source, and 
 there established a monument. So much, then, on the eastern 
 line was settled ; and all the other questions remained wholly 
 unsettled down to the year 1842. 
 
 But the two governments continued to pursue the important 
 and necessary purpose of adjusting boundary difficulties ; and 
 a convention was negotiated in London by Mr. Rufus King 
 and Lord Hawkesbury, and signed on the 12th day of May, 
 1803, by the 2d and 3d articles of which it was agreed that 
 a commission should be appointed, in the same manner as that 
 provided for under the treaty of 1794, to wit : one commission- 
 er to be appointed by England, and one by the United States, 
 and these two to make choice of a third ; or, if they could not 
 agree, each to name the person he proposed, and the choice to 
 be decided by lot ; this third commissioner, whether appointed 
 by choice or by lot, would, of course, be umpire or ultimate 
 arbiter. 
 
 Governments at that day, in disputes concerning territorial 
 boundaries, did not set out each with the declaration that the 
 whole of its own claim was clear and indisputable ; whatever 
 was seriously disputed they regarded as in some degree, at 
 least, doubtful or disputable ; and when they could not agree, 
 they saw no indignity or impropriety in referring the dispute 
 to arbitration, even though the arbitrator were to be appointed 
 by chante, between respectable persons, named severally by 
 the parties. 
 
 The commission thus constituted was authorized to ascertain 
 and determine the northwest angle of Nova Scotia; to run and 
 mark the line from the monument, at the source of St. Croix, to 
 that northwest angle of Nova Scotia ; and also to determine 
 the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; and then to 
 run and mark the boundary line between the northwest angle 
 of Nova Scotia and the said northwesternmost head of Con- 
 necticut River; and the decision and proceedings of the said 
 commissioners, or a majority of them, was to be final and con- 
 clusive. 
 
 No objection was made by either government to this agree- 
 ment and stipulation ; but an incident arose to prevent the final 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 243 
 
 r-atification of this treaty, and it arose in this way. Its fifth ar- 
 ticle contained an agreement between the parties settling the 
 line of boundary between them beyond the Lake of the Woods. 
 In coming to this agreement, they proceeded exclusively on 
 the grounds of their respective rights under the treaty of 1783; 
 but it so happened that, twelve days before the convention was 
 signed in London, France, by a treaty signed in Paris, had ced- 
 ed Louisiana to the United States. This cession was at once 
 regarded as giving to the United States new rights, or new 
 limits, in this part of the Continent. The Senate, therefore, 
 struck this 5th article out of the convention ; and, as England 
 did not incline to agree to this alteration, the whole convention 
 fell. 
 
 Here, sir, the whole matter rested till it was revived by the 
 Treaty of Ghent, in the year 1S14. And by the 5th article of 
 that treaty it was provided, that each party should appoint a 
 commissioner, and those two should have power to ascertain 
 and determine the boundary line, from the source of the St. 
 Croix to the St. Lawrence River, according to the treaty o^ 
 1783; and if these commissioners could not agree, they were 
 to state their grounds of difference, and the subject was to be 
 referred to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state, 
 to be afterward agreed upon by the two governments. The 
 two commissioners examined the boundary, explored the coun- 
 try, but could not agree. 
 
 In the year 1823, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, 
 negotiations were commenced with a view of agreeing on an 
 arbitration, and these negotiations terminated in a convention, 
 which was signed in London, on the 29th of September, 1827, in 
 the administration of Mr. Adams. By this time, collisions had 
 already begun on the borders, notwithstanding it had been un- 
 derstood that neither party should exercise exclusive posses- 
 sion pending the negotiation. Mr. Adams, in his message of 
 December 8, 1827, after stating the conclusion of the conven- 
 tion for arbitration, adds : 
 
 " While tliese conventions have been pending, incidents have occuiTed of con- 
 flicting pretensions, and of a dangerous character, upon the territory itself in dis- 
 pute between the two nations. By a common understanding between the gov- 
 ernments, it was agreed that no exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by either party, 
 while the negotiaton was pending, should change the state of the question of right 
 to be definitely settled. Such collision has, nevertheless, recently taken place 
 by occurrences the precise character of which has not yet been ascertained." 
 
 The King of the Netherlands was appointed arbitrator, and 
 he made his award on the 10th of January, 1831. This award 
 was satisfactory to neither party ; it was rejected by both, and 
 so the whole matter was thrown back upon its original condi- 
 tion. 
 
 This happened in the first term of General Jackson's admin- 
 
244 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 istration. He immediately addressed himself, of course, to new 
 efforts for the adjustment of the controversy. His energy and 
 diligence have both been much commended by his friends; and 
 they have not been disparaged by his opponents. He called 
 to his aid, in the Department of State, successively, Mr. Van 
 Buren, Mr. Livingston, Mr. M'Lane, and Mr. Forsyth. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, let us see M^hat progress General Jack- 
 son made, with the assistance of these able and skillful negoti- 
 ators, in this highly important business. Why, sir, the whole 
 story is told by reference to his several annual messages. In 
 his fourth annual message, December, 1832, he says: "The 
 question of our norteasthern boundary still remains unsettled." 
 In December, 1833, he says : " The interesting question of our 
 northeastern boundary remains still undecided. A negotiation, 
 however, upon that subject has been renewed since the close 
 of the last Congress." In December, 1834, he says : " The 
 question of the northeastern boundary is still pending with 
 Great Britain, and the proposition made in accordance with 
 the resolution of the Senate, for the establishment of a line ac- 
 cording to the treaty of 1783, has not been accepted by that 
 government. Believing that every disposition is felt on both 
 sides to adjust this perplexing question to the satisfaction of all 
 the parties interested in it, the hope is yet indulged that it may 
 be effected on the basis of that proposition." In December, 
 1835, a similar story is rehearsed : " In the settlement of the 
 question of the northeastern boundary," says President Jack- 
 son, " little progress has been made. Great Britain has de- 
 clined acceding to the proposition of the United States, pre- 
 sented in accordance with the resolution of the Senate, unless 
 certain preliminary conditions are admitted, which I deemed 
 incompatible with a satisfactory and rightful adjustment of the 
 controversy." And in his last message, the President gives an 
 account of all his efforts, and all his success, in regard to this 
 most important point in our foreign relations, in these words : 
 " I regret to say, that many questions of an interesting nature, 
 at issue with other powers, are yet unadjusted ; among the 
 most prominent of these is that of the northeastern boundary. 
 With an undiminished confidence in the sincere desire of his 
 Britannic majesty's government to adjust that question, I am 
 not yet in possession of the precise grounds upon which it pro- 
 poses a satisfactory adjustment." 
 
 With all his confidence, so often repeated, in the sincere de- 
 sire of England to adjust the dispute, with all the talents and 
 industry of his successive cabinets, this question, admitted to 
 be the most prominent of all those on which we were at issue 
 with foreign powers, had not advanced one step since the re- 
 jection of the Dutch award ; nor did General Jackson know the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 245 
 
 grounds upon which a satisfactory adjustment was to be ex- 
 pected. All this is undeniably true ; and it was all admitted 
 to be true by Mr. Van Buren when he came into office ; for, 
 in his first annual message, he says : 
 
 " Oi" pending questions the most important is that which exists with the govern- 
 ment of Great Britain iu respect to olu- northeastern boundary. It is with un- 
 feigned regret that the people of the United States must look back upon the abor- 
 tive efforts made by the executive for a period of more than half a century, to de- 
 termine what uo nation should suffer long to remain iu dispute, the true line which 
 divides its possessions from those of other powers. The nature of the settlements 
 on the borders of the United States, and of the neighboring territory, was for a 
 season such, that this, perhaps, was not indispensable to a faithful performance of 
 tlie duties of the Federal government. Time has, however, changed the state of 
 things, and has brought about a coudition of affairs in which the true interests of 
 both countries imperatively require that this question should be put at rest. It 
 is not to be disguised that, vfith full confidence, often expressed in the desire of 
 the British government to terminate it, we are apparently as far from its adjust- 
 ment as we were at the time of signing the treaty of peace, 1783." * * * 
 " The conviction, which must be common to all, of the injurious consequences 
 that result from keeping open this irritating question, and the certainty that its 
 final settlement can not be much longer deferred, will, I trust, lead to an early 
 and satisfactory adjustment. At your last session, I laid before you the recent 
 commuuications between the two governments, and between this government and 
 that of the State of Maine, in whose solicitude, concerning a subject in which she 
 has so deep au interest, every portion a( the Union participates." 
 
 Now, sir, let us pause and consider this. Here we are, fifty- 
 three years from the date of the Treaty of Peace, and the bound- 
 aries not yet settled. General Jackson has tried his hand at 
 the business for five years, and has done nothing. He can not 
 make the thing move. And why not? Do he and his advis- 
 ers want skill and energy, or are there difficulties in the nature 
 of the case, not to be overcome till some wiser course of pro- 
 ceeding shall be adopted ? Up to this time not one step of 
 progress has been made. This is admitted, and is, indeed, un- 
 deniable. 
 
 Well, sir, Mr. Van Buren then began his administration un- 
 der the deepest conviction of the importance of the question, in 
 the fullest confidence in the sincerity of the British govern- 
 ment, and with the consciousness that the solicitude of Maine 
 concerning the subject was a solicitude in which every portion 
 of the Union participated. 
 
 And now, sir, what did he do ? What did he accomplish ? 
 What progress did he make ? What step forward did he take 
 in the whole course of his administration? Seeing the full im- 
 portance of the subject, addressing himself to it, and not doubt- 
 ing the just disposition of England, I ask again, what did he 
 do ? What did he do ? What advance did he make ? Sir, 
 not one step, in his whole four years. Or, rather, if he made 
 any advance at all, it was an advance backward ; for, un- 
 doubtedly, he left the question in a much worse state than he 
 found it, not only on account of the disturbances and outbreaks 
 which had taken place on the border, for the want of an adjust- 
 
246 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ment, and which disturbances themselves had raised new and 
 difficult questions, but on account of the intricacies, and com- 
 plexities, and perplexities in which the correspondence had 
 become involved. There was a mesh, an entanglement, which 
 rendered it far more difficult to proceed with the subject than 
 if the question had been fresh and unembarrassed. 
 
 I must now ask the Senate to indulge me in something more 
 of an extended and particular reference to proofs and papers 
 than is in accordance with my general habits in debate ; be- 
 cause I wish to present to the Senate, and to the country, the 
 grounds of what I have just said. 
 
 And let us follow the administration of Mr. Van Buren from 
 his first message, and see how this important matter fares in 
 his hands. 
 
 On the 20th of March, 1838, he sent a message to the Senate, 
 with a correspondence between Mr. Fox and Mr. Forsyth. In 
 this correspondence Mr. Fox says: 
 
 " The United States government have proposed two modes in which such a 
 commission might be constituted : first, that it might consist of commissioners, 
 named in equal numbers, by each of thelwo governments, with an umpire to be 
 selected by some friendly European povrer. Secondly, that it might be entirely 
 composed of scientific Europeans, to be selected by a friendly sovereign, and 
 might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in 
 order that such agents might give to the commissioners assistance and iuformation. 
 
 " Her majesty's government have themselves already stated that they have lit- 
 tle expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and that 
 they would on that account be disposed to object to it ; and if her majesty's gov- 
 ernment were now to agree to appoint such a commission, it would only be in 
 compliance with the desire so strongly expressed by the government of the United 
 States, and in spite of doubts, which her majesty's goveniment still continue to en- 
 tertain, of the efficacy of the measure." 
 
 To this Mr. Forsyth replies, that he perceives, with feelings 
 of deep disappointment, that the answer to the propositions of 
 the United States is so indefinite, as to render it impracticable 
 to ascertain, without further discussion, what are the real wish- 
 es and intentions of her majesty's government. Here, then, a 
 new discussion arises, to find out, if it can be found out, what 
 the parties mean. Meantime Mr. Forsyth writes a letter, of 
 twenty or thirty pages, to the Governor of Maine, concluding 
 with a suggestion that his excellency should take measures to 
 ascertain the sense of the State of Maine with respect to the 
 expediency of a conventional line. This correspondence re- 
 peats the proposition of a joint exploration by commissioners, 
 and Mr. Fox accedes to it, in deference to the wishes of the 
 United States, but with very little hope that any good will 
 come of it. 
 
 Here is the upshot of one whole year's work. Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren sums it up thus, in his message of December, 1838: 
 
 " With respect to the northeastern bouudaiy of the United States, no official 
 correspondence between this government and that of Great Britain has passed 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 247 
 
 since that communicated to Congress towai'd the close of their last session. The 
 oner to negotiate a convention for the appointment of a joint commission of sur- 
 vey and exploration, I am, however, assured, will be met by her majesty's gov- 
 ernment in a conciliatory and friendly spirit, and instructions to enable the Brit- 
 ish minister here to conclude such an arrangement will be transmitted to him 
 without needless delay." 
 
 We may now look for instructions to Mr. Fox to conclude 
 an arrangement for a joint commission of survey and explora- 
 tion. Survey and exploration ! As if there had not already 
 been enough of both! But thus terminates 1838, with a hope 
 of coming to an agreement for a survey ! Great progress, this, 
 surely ! 
 
 And now we come to 1839; and wdiat, sir, think you, was 
 the product of diplomatic fertility and cultivation in the year 
 1839 ? Sir, the harvest was one project and one coM7iter-project. 
 
 On the 20th of May Mr. Fox sent to Mr. Forsyth a draught 
 of a convention for a joint exploration by commissioners, the 
 commissioners to make report to their respective governments. 
 
 This was the British project. 
 
 On the 29th of July Mr. Forsyth sent to Mr. Fox a counter- 
 project, embracing the principle of arbitration. By this, if the 
 commissioners did not agree, a reference was to be had to three 
 persons, selected by three friendly sovereigns or states ; and 
 these arbitrators might order another survey. Here the par- 
 ties, apparently fatigued with their efforts, paused ; and the la- 
 bors of the year are thus rehearsed and recapitulated by Mr. 
 Van Buren at the end of the season : 
 
 " For the settlement of oiu* northeastern boundary, the proposition promised by 
 Great Britain for a commission of exploration and survey has been received, and 
 a counter-project, including also a provision for the certain and final adjustment 
 of the limits in dispute, is now before the British government for its considera- 
 tion. A just regard to the delicate state of this question, and a proper respect for 
 the natural impatience of the State of Maine, not less than a conviction that the 
 negotiation has been already protracted longer than is prudent on the part of 
 either government, liave led me to believe that the present favorable moment 
 should, on no account, be suflered to pass without putting the question forever 
 at rest. I feel confident that the government of her Britannic majesty will take 
 the same view of the subject, as I am persuaded it is governed by desires equally 
 strong and sincere for the amicable termination of the controversy." 
 
 Here, sir, in this "delicate state of the question" all things 
 rested till the next year. 
 
 Early after the commencement of the warm weather, in 
 1840, the industrious diplomatists resumed their severe and 
 rigorous labors, and on the 22d of June, 1840, Mr. Fox writes 
 thus to Mr. Forsyth: 
 
 " The British government and the government of the United States agreed, two 
 years ago, that a survey of the disputed territory by a joint commission would 
 be the measure best calculated to elucidate and solve the question at issue. The 
 President proposed such a commission, and her majesty's government consented 
 to it ; and it was believed by her majesty's government that the general princi- 
 ples upon which the commission was to be guided in its local operations had been 
 Battled by mutual agreement, arrived at by means of a CDrrespondence which took 
 place between the two governments in 1837 and 1838. Her majesty's govern- 
 
248 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 nieut accordingly transmitted, in April of last year, for the consideration of tie 
 President, a drauglit of the convention, to regulate the proceedings of the pro- 
 posed convention." 
 
 " The preamble of that draught recited, textually, the agreement that had been 
 come to by means of notes which had been exchanged between the two govern- 
 ments ; and the articles of the draught were framed, as her majesty's government 
 considered, in strict conlbrmity with that agreement. 
 
 " Bat the government of the United States did not think proper to assent to the 
 convention so proposed. 
 
 "The United States government did not, indeed, allege that the proposed con- 
 vention was at variance with the result of the previous correspondence between 
 the two governments; but it thought that the convention would establish a coin- 
 mission of ' mere exploration and survey;' and the President was of opinion that 
 the step next to be taken by the two governments should be to contract stipula- 
 tions, bearing upon the face of them the promise of a final settlement, under some 
 form or other, and within a reasonable time. 
 
 " The United States government accordingly transmitted to tlie undersigned, 
 for communication to her majesty's government, in the month of July last, a coun- 
 ter-draught of convention, varying considerably in some parts (as the Secretary 
 of State of the United States admitted in his letter to the undersigned of the 29th 
 of July last) from the draught proposed by Great Britain." 
 
 " There was, undoubtedly, one essential difference between the British draught 
 and the American counter-draught. 
 
 " Tiie'British draught contained no provision embodying the principle of arbi- 
 tration. The American counter-draught did contain such a provision. 
 
 " The British draught contained no provision for arbitration, because the prin- 
 ciple of arbitration had not been proposed on either side during the negotiations 
 upon wliieli that draught was founded ; and because, moreover, it was understood 
 at that time that the principle of arbitration would be decidedly objected to by 
 the United States. But as the United States government have now expressed a 
 wish to embody the principle of arbitration in the proposed convention, her maj- 
 esty's government are perfectly willing to accede to that wish. 
 
 " The^ undersigned is accordingly instructed to state officially to Mr. Forsyth, 
 that her. majesty's government consent to the two principles which form the main 
 foundation of the American counter-draught, namely: first, tliat the commission 
 to be appointed shall be so constituted as necessarily to lead to a final settlement 
 of the questions of boundary at issue between the two countries ; and. secondly, 
 that, in order to secure such a result, the convention by which the commission i3 
 to be created shall contain a provision for arbitration upon points as to which the 
 British and American commission may not be able to agree. 
 
 " The undei'signed is, however, instructed to add, that there are many matters 
 of detail in the American counter-draught which her majesty's government can 
 not adopt. 
 
 " The undersigned will be furnished from his government, by an early oppor- 
 tunity, with an amended draught, in confOTmity w^ith tlie principles above stated, 
 to be submitted to the consideration of the President. And the undersigned ex- 
 j)ects to be at the same time furnished witli instructions to propose to the govern- 
 ment of the United States a fresh, local, and temi)orary convention, for the better 
 prevention of incidental border collisions within the disputed territory during 
 the time that may be occupied in can-ying through the operation of survey or ar- 
 bitration." 
 
 And on the 26th of June Mr. Forsyth replies, and says : 
 
 "That he derives great satisfaction from the annoimcement that her majesty's 
 government do not relinquish the hope that the sincere desire which is felt by 
 both parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, will at length be attended with 
 success ; and from the prospect held out by Mr. Fox of his being accordingly fur- 
 nished, by an early opportunity, with the draught of a proposition amended in 
 conformity with the principles to which lier majesty's government has acceded, 
 to be submitted to the consideration of this government." 
 
 On the 28th of July, 1840, the British amended draught came. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 249 
 
 This draught proposed that commissioners should be appointed, 
 as before, to mai^e exploration; that umpires or arbitrators 
 should be appointed by three friendly sovereigns, and that the 
 arbitration should sit in Germany, at Frankfort-on-the-Mame. 
 And the draught contains many articles of arrangement and 
 detail for carrying the exploration and arbitration into effect. 
 
 At the same time, Mr. Fox sends to Mr. Forsyth the report 
 of two British commissioners, Messrs. Mudge and Featherston- 
 haugh, who had made an ex parte survey in 1839. And a 
 most extraordinary report it was. These gentlemen had dis- 
 covered that up to that time nobody had been right. They 
 invented a new line of highland, cutting across the "waters of 
 the Aroostook-, and other streams emptying into the St. John's, 
 which, in all previous examinations and explorations, had es- 
 caped all mortal eyes. 
 
 Here, then, we had one project more for exploration and ar- 
 bitration, together with a report from the British commission- 
 ers of survey, placing the British claim where it had never been 
 placed before. And on the 13th of August, there comes again, 
 as matter of course, from Mr. Forsyth, another counter-project. 
 Lord Palmerston is never richer in projects than Mr. Forsyth 
 is in counter-projects. There is always a Roland for an. Oli- 
 ver. This counter-project of the 13th of August, 1840, was 
 drawn in the retirement of Albany. It consists of 18 articles, 
 which it is hardly necessary to describe particularly. Of 
 course, it proceeds on the two principles already agreed on, 
 of exploration and arbitration ; but in all matters of arrange- 
 ment and detail, it was quite different from Lord Palmerston's 
 draught, communicated by Mr. Fox. 
 
 And here the rapid march of diplomacy came to a dead halt. 
 Mr. Fox found so many, and such great changes proposed, to 
 the British draught, that he did not incline to discuss them. 
 He did not believe the British government would ever agree to 
 Mr. Forsyth's plan, but he would send it home, and see what 
 could be done with it. 
 
 Thus stood matters at the end of 1840, and in his message 
 at the meetin-g of Congress in December of that year, his vale- 
 Idictorv message, Mr. Van Buren thus describes that condition 
 of things, which he 'found to be the result of his four years of 
 negotiation. 
 
 " In niY last annual messa-e you were iuformed that a proposition for a com- 
 raissiou of exploration and survey, promised by Great Britain, had been received, 
 and that a counter-project, including also a provision for the certam and fanal ad- 
 instnient of the limits in dispute, was then before the British government tor its 
 consideration. The answer of that government, accompanied by additional prop- 
 ositions of its own, was received through its minister here, since your separation. 
 The/e were promptly considered ; such as were deemed correct in principle and 
 coilistent with a due regard to the just rights of the United States and of the 
 State of Maine, concurred in; and the reasons for dissenting from the residue, 
 
250 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 with an additional suggestion on our part, communicated by the Secretary of State 
 to Mr. Fox. Tliat miulstcr, not feeling himself sufficiently instructed upon somo 
 of the points raised in the discussion, felt it to be his duty to refer the matter to 
 his own goverument for its further decision." 
 
 And now, sir, who will deny that this is a very promising 
 condition of things to exist fifty-seven years after the conclu- 
 sion of the treaty ! 
 
 Here is the British project for exploration ; then the Ameri- 
 can counter-project for exploration, to be the foundation of ar- 
 bitrntion. Next, the answer of Great Britain to our counter- 
 project, stating divers exceptions and objections to it, and with 
 sundry new and additional propositions of her own. Some of 
 these were concurred in, but others dissented from, and other 
 additional suggestions on our part were proposed ; and all these 
 concurrences, dissents, and new suggestions were brought to- 
 gether and incorporated into Mr. Forsyth's last labor of diplo- 
 macy, at least his last labor in regard to this subject, his coun- 
 ter-project of August the 13th, 1840. That counter-project 
 was sent to England, to see what Lord Palmerston could make 
 of it. It fared in the Foreign OfRce just as Mr. Fox had fore- 
 told. Lord Palmerston would have nothing to do with it. He 
 would not answer it ; he would not touch it ; he gave up the 
 negotiation in apparent despair. Two years before, the parties 
 had agreed on the principle of joint exploration, and the princi- 
 ple of arbitration. But in their subsequent correspondence, on 
 matters of detail, modes of proceeding, and subordinate ar- 
 rangements, they had, through the whole two years, constantly 
 receded further, and further, and further from each other. 
 They were flying apart ; and, like two orbs, going off in oppo- 
 site directions, could only meet after they should have travers- 
 ed the whole circle. 
 
 But this exposition of the case does not describe, by any 
 means, all the difficulties and embarrassments arising from the 
 unsettled state of the controversy. We all remember the troub- 
 les of 1839. Something like a border war had broke out. 
 Maine had raised an armed civil posse ; she fortified the line, 
 or points on the line, of territory, to keep off" intruders and to 
 defend possession. There was Fort Fairfield, Fort Kent, and 
 I know not what other fortresses, all memorable in history. 
 The Legislature of Maine had placed eight hundred thousand 
 dollars at the discretion of the governor, to be used for the mil- 
 itary defense of the state. Major-general Scott had repaired 
 to the frontier, and under his mediation an agreement, a sort 
 of treaty, respecting the temporary possession of the two par- 
 ties, of the territory in dispute, was entered into between the 
 governors of Maine and New Brunswick. But as it could not 
 be foreseen how long the principal dispute would be protracted, 
 Mr. Fox, as has already been seen, wrote home for instructions 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 251 
 
 for another treaty: a treaty of less dignity ; a collateral treaty; 
 a treaty to regulate the terms of possession, and the means of 
 keeping the peace of the frontier, while the number of years 
 should roll away, necessary, first, to spin out the whole thread 
 of diplomacy in forming a convention; next, for three or four 
 years of joint exploration of seven hundred miles of disputed 
 boundary in the wilderness of North America; and, finally, to 
 learn the results of an arbitration which was to sit at Frankfort- 
 on-the-Maine, composed of learned doctors from the German 
 universities. 
 
 Really, sir, is not this a most delightful prospect? Is there 
 not here as beautiful a labyrinth of diplomacy as one could wish 
 to look at of a summer's day ? Would not Castlereagh and 
 Talleyrand, Nesselrode and Metternich, find it an entanglement 
 worthy the labor of their own hands to unravel ? Is it not ap- 
 parent, Mr. President, that at this time the settlement of the 
 question, by this kind of diplomacy, if to be reached by any vi- 
 sion, required telescopic sight? The country was settling ; in- 
 dividual rights were getting into collision ; it was impossible 
 to prevent disputes and disturbances ; every consideration re- 
 quired, that whatever was to be done should be done quickly ; 
 and yet every thing, thus far, had waited the sluggish flow of 
 the current of diplomacy. Lahitur et lahetur. 
 
 I have already stated, that on the receipt of Mr. Forsyth's 
 last counter-plan, or counter-project. Lord Palmerston, at last, 
 paused. He did so. The British government appears to have 
 made up its mind that nothing was to be expected, at that time, 
 from pursuing further this battle-door play oi projels and contre- 
 projets. What occurred in England, we collect from the pub- 
 lished debates of the House of Commons. From these we 
 learn, that after General Harrison's election, and, indeed, after 
 his death, and in the first year of Mr. Tyler's Presidency, Lord 
 Palmerston wrote to Mr. Fox as follows : 
 
 " Her majesty's government received, with very great regret, the second Amer- 
 ican counter-draught of a convention for determining the boundary between the 
 United States and the British North American provinces, which you ti-ansmitted 
 to me last autumn, in your dispatch of the 15th of August, 1840, because that coun- 
 ter-draught contained so many inadmissible propositions, that it plainly showed 
 that her majesty's government could entertain no hope of concluding any ar- 
 rangement on this subject with the government of Mr. Van Buren, and that there 
 was no use in taking any further steps in the negotiations till the new President 
 should come into powder. Her majesty's government had certainly been per- 
 suaded that a draught which, in pursuance of yonr instruction, you pi'esented to 
 Mr. Forsyth on the 28th of July, 1840, was so fair in its provision, and so well 
 calculated to bring the differences between the two governments about the 
 boundary to a just and satisfactory conclusion, that it would have been at once 
 accepted by the government of the United States; or that if the American gov- 
 ernment had proposed to make any alterations in it, those alterations would have 
 related merely to matters of detail, and would not have borne upon any essential 
 pointf of the arrangement ; and her majesty's government were the more con- 
 firmed in this hope, because almost all the main principles of the arrangement 
 
252 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 which that draught was intended to cany into execution had, as her majesty's 
 government conceived, been either suggested by, or agreed to by, the United 
 States government itself." 
 
 Lord Palmerston is represented to have said, in this dispatch 
 of Mr. Forsyth's counter-project, that he "can not agree" to 
 the preamble ; that he " can not consent" to the second article ; 
 that he " must object to the fourth article ;" that the " seventh 
 article imposed incompatible duties ;" and to every article 
 there was an objection, stated in a different form, until he 
 reached the tenth, and that, as to that, '' none could be more 
 inadmissible. ' 
 
 This was the state of the negotiation a few days before 
 Lord Palmerston's retirement. But, nevertheless, his lordship 
 would make one more attempt, now that there was a new ad- 
 ministration here, and he would make '^ new proposals J^ And 
 what were they ? 
 
 " And what does the House think," said Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Com- 
 mons, " were the noble lord's proposals in that desperate state of circumstances? 
 The proposal of the noble lord, after fifty-eight years of controversy, submitted 
 by him to the American government for the purpose of a speedy settlement, was, 
 that conmiissioners should be nominated on Ijoth sides; that they should attempt 
 to make settlement of this long-disputed question ; and then, if that failed, that 
 the King of Prussia, the King of Sardinia, and the King of Saxony were to be 
 called in, not to act as umpires, but they were each to be requested to name a 
 scientific man, and that these three members of a scientific commission should 
 proceed to arbitrate. Was there ever a proposition like this suggested for the ar- 
 mngement of a question on which two countries had differed for fifty-eight years ? 
 And this, too, was proposed after the failure of the arbitration on the part of the 
 King of Holland, and when they had had their commission of exploration in vain. 
 And yet, with all this, there were to be three scientific men, foreign professors: 
 one from Prussia, one from Sardinia, and one from Saxony ! To do what ? And 
 where were they to meet? or how were they to come to a satisfactory adjust- 
 ment?" 
 
 It was asked in the House of Commons, not inaptly, what 
 would the people of Maine think, when they should read that 
 they were to be visited by three learned foreigners, one from 
 Prussia, one from Saxony, and one from Sardinia? To be 
 sure ; what would they think, when they should see three 
 learned foreign professors, each speaking a different language, 
 and none of them the English or American tongue, among the 
 swamps and morasses of Maine, in summer, or wading through 
 its snows in winter ; on the Ailagash, the Macadavie, or among 
 the moose deer, on the precipitous and lofty shores of Lake Po- 
 henagamook — and for what? To find where the division was 
 between Maine and New Brunswick ! Instructing themselves, 
 by these labors, that they might repair to Frankfort-on-the- 
 Maine, and there hold solemn and scientific arbitration on the 
 question of a boundary line in one of the deepest wildernesses 
 of North America ! 
 
 Sir, I do not know what might have happened if this project 
 had gone on. Possibly, sir, but that your country has called 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 253 
 
 you to higher duties, you might *ow have been at Frankfort- 
 on-the-Maine, the advocate of our cause before the scientific 
 arbitration. If not yourself, some one of the honorable mem- 
 bers here very probably would have been employed m attempt- 
 ing to utter the almost unspeakable names, bestowed by the 
 northeastern Indians on American lakes and streams, in the 
 
 heart of Germany. , . ,. , ,• j vu «Uo^ 
 
 Mr Fox, it is said, on reading his dispatch, replied, with char- 
 acteristic promptitude and good sense, » for God s sake save us 
 from the philosophers ! Have sovereigns, if you please, but no 
 professional men." , . 
 
 But Mr. Fox was instructed, as it now appears, to renew his 
 exertions to carry forward the arbitration. "Let us, said Lord 
 Palmerston, in writing to him, "let us consider the American 
 contre-projet as unreasonable, undeserving of answer, as with- 
 drawn from consideration, and now submit my original projet 
 to Mr. Webster, the new Secretary of State, and persuade him 
 it is reasonable." ,_ ,,, , ^ 
 
 With all respect, sir, to Lord Palmerston, Mr. Webster was 
 not to be so persuaded; that is to say, he was not persuaded 
 that it was reasonable, or wise, or prudent to pursue the nego- 
 tiation, in this form, further. He hoped to live long enough to 
 see the northeastern boundary settled ; but that hope was taint, 
 unless he could rescue the question from the labyrinth of proj- 
 ects and counter-projects, explorations and arbitration, m which 
 it was involved. He could not reasonably expect that he had 
 another whole half century of life before him. 
 
 Mr President, it is true that I viewed the case as hopeless 
 without an entire change in the manner of proceeding. 1 tound 
 the parties already "in wandering mazes lost 1 loun'i ;^ 
 quite as tedious and difficult to trace the thread «[, this mtricate 
 negotiation, as it would be to run out the line of the Highlands 
 itsdf One was quite as full as the other of deviations, abrupt- 
 nesses, and perplexities. And having received the President s 
 (Mr Tyler's) authority, I did say to Mr. Fox, as has been stat- 
 ed in the British Parliament, that I was wilhng to attempt to 
 settle the dispute by agreeing on a conventional Ime, or line by 
 
 compromise. „ , r ^u^ „„ 
 
 Mr. President, I was fully aware of the difficulty of the un- 
 dertakincr. I saw it was a serious aflfair to call on Maine to 
 come int'o an agreement by which «he might subject herself 
 to the loss of territory which she regarded as clearly hei own 
 The question touched her proprietary interests and, what was 
 more delicate, it touched the extent of her jurisdiction. 1 knew 
 well her extreme jealousy and high feeling on this point. But 
 
 i 
 
 * It is now weU known that in 1832 an agreement was entered into between 
 
254 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 I believed in her patriotism, and in her willingness to make 
 sacrifices for the good of the country. I trusted, too, that her 
 own good sense would lead her, while she, doubtless, preferred 
 the strict execution of the treaty, as she understood it, to any 
 line by compromise, to see, nevertheless, that the government 
 of the United States was already pledged to arbitration by its 
 own proposition and the agreement of Great Britain ; that this 
 arbitration might not be concluded and finished for many years, 
 and that, after all, the result might be doubtful. With this re- 
 liance on the patriotism and good sense of Maine, and with the 
 sanction of the President, I was willing to make an effort to es- 
 tabhsh a boundary by direct compromise and agreement ; by 
 acts of the parties themselves, which they could understand and 
 judge of for themselves ; by a proceeding which left nothing to 
 the future judgment of others, and by which the controversy 
 could be settled in six months. And, sir, I leave it to the Sen- 
 ate to-day, and the country always, to say, how far this offer 
 and this effort were wise or unwise, statesman-like or unstates- 
 man-like, beneficial or injurious. 
 
 Well, sir, in the autumn of 1841, it was known in England 
 to be the opinion of the American government that it was not 
 advisable to prosecute further the scheme of arbitration ; that 
 that government was ready to open a negotiation for a conven- 
 tional line of boundary ; and a letter from Mr. Everett, dated 
 on the 31st of December, announced the determination of the 
 British government to send a special minister to the United 
 States, authorized to settle all matters in difference, and the 
 selection of Lord Ashburton for that trust. This letter was 
 answered, on the 29th of January, by an assurance that Lord 
 Ashburton would be received with the respect due to his gov- 
 ernment and to himself Lord Ashburton arrived in Washing- 
 ton on the 4th of April, 1842, and was presented to the Presi- 
 dent on the 6th. 
 
 On the 11th, a letter was written from the Department of 
 State to the Governor of Maine, announcing his arrival, and 
 his declaration that he had authority to treat for a convention- 
 al line of boundary, or line by agreement, on mutual condi- 
 tions, considerations, and equivalents. 
 
 The Governor of Maine was informed that, 
 
 some of the heads of departments at Washington, viz., Messrs. Livingston, M'Lane, 
 and Woodbury, under the direction of President Jackson, on the part of the Unit- 
 ed States, and Messrs. Preble, Williams, and Emery, on the part of the govern- 
 ment of Maine, by which it was stipulated that Maine should surrender to the 
 United States the territory which she claimed beyond the line designated by the 
 Kin" of the Netherlands, and receive as an indemnity one million of acres of the 
 public lands, to be selected by herself in Michigan. The existence of this treaty 
 was not known for some time, and it was never ratified by the high contracting 
 parties. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OTFICIAL PAI'CRS. 255 
 
 " Under these circumstances, the President had felt it to be his duty to call the 
 serious attention of the govertnncuts of Maine and Miissachusetts to the subject, 
 and to submit to those govrrnmonts the pro])riety of their co-operation, to a cer- 
 tain extent, and in a certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a controversy al- 
 ready of so long duration, and which seems very likely to be still considerably 
 further protracted before the desired end of a (inul adjustment shall be attained, 
 nnlcss a shorter course of arriving at that end be adopted than such as has hereto- 
 fore been pursued, and as the two governments are still pursuing. 
 
 "The opinion of this government upon the justice and validity of the American 
 claim has been expressed at so many times, and in so many forms, that a repeti- 
 tion of that opinion is not necessary. But the subject is a subject in dispute. 
 The government has agreed to make it a matter of reference and arbitration ; and 
 it must fuliill that agreement, miless another mode of settling the controversy 
 should be resorted to with the hope of producing a speedier decision. The Pres- 
 ident proposes, then, that the governments of Maine and Massachusetts should 
 Beverally appoint a commissioner or commissioners, empowered to confer with 
 the authorities of this government upon a conventional line, or line by agreement, 
 with its terms, conditions, considerations, and etpiivalents, with an understanding 
 that no such line will be agreed upon without the assent of such commissioners. 
 
 " This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express assent before- 
 hand, seems indispensable, if any negotiation for a conventional line is to be had ; 
 since, if happily a treaty should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be 
 submitted to the Senate of the United States for ratification." 
 
 A similar letter was addressed to the Governor of Massa- 
 chusetts. The Governor of Maine, now an honorable member 
 of this House, immediately convoked the Legislature of Maine 
 by proclamation. In Massachusetts the probable exigency had 
 been anticipated, and the Legislature had authorized the gov- 
 ernor, now my honorable colleague here, to appoint commis- 
 sicmcrs on behalf of the commonwealth. The Legislature of 
 Maine adopted resolutions to the same effect, and duly elected 
 four commissioners from among the most eminent persons in 
 the state, of all parties ; and their unanimous consent to any 
 proposed line of boundary was made indispensable. Three 
 distinguished public men, known to all parties, and having the 
 confidence of all parties, in any question of this kind, were ap- 
 pointed commissioners by the Governor of Massachusetts. 
 
 Now, sir, I ask, could any thing have been devised fairer, 
 safer, and better for all parties than this ? The states were 
 here, by their commissioners ; Great Britain was here, by her 
 special minister ; and the Canadian and New Brunswick au- 
 thorities within reach of the means of consultation ; and the 
 government of the United States was ready to proceed with 
 the important duties it had assumed. Sir, 1 put the question 
 to any man of sense, whether, supposing the real object to be 
 a fair, just, convenient, prompt settlement of the boundary dis- 
 pute, tliis state of things was not more promising than all the 
 schemes of exploration and arbitration, and all the tissue of 
 projects and counter-projects with which the two governments 
 had been making themselves strenuously idle for so many 
 years? Nor was the promise not fulfilled. 
 
 It has been said, absurdly enough, that Maine was coerced 
 into a consent to this line of boundary. What was the coer- 
 
256 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 cion? Where was the coercion? On the one hand, she saw 
 an immediate and reasonable settlement; on the other hand, a 
 proceeding sure to be long, and its result seen to be doubtful. 
 Sir, the coercion was none other than the coercion of duty, 
 good sense, and manifest interest. The right and the expedient 
 united, to compel her to give up the wrong, the useless, the in- 
 expedient. 
 
 Maine was asked to judge for herself, to decide on her own 
 interests, not unmindful, nevertheless, of those patriotic consid- 
 erations which should lead her to regard the peace and pros- 
 perity of the whole country. Maine, it has been said, was per- 
 suaded to part with a portion of territory by this agreement. 
 Persuaded ! Why, sir, she was invited here to make a com- 
 promise — to give and to take ; to surrender territory of very 
 little value for equivalent advantnges, of which advantages she 
 was herself to be the uncontrolled judge. Her commissioners 
 needed no guardians. They knew her interest. They knew 
 what they were called on to part with, and the value of what 
 they could obtain in exchange. They knew especially that on 
 one hand was immediate settlement, on the other, ten or fifteen 
 years more of delay and vexation. Sir, the piteous tears shed 
 for Maine in this respect are not her own tears. They are the 
 crocodile tears of pretended friendship and party sentimentali- 
 ty. Lamentations and griefs have been uttered in this Capitol 
 about the losses and sacrifices of Maine, which nine tenths of 
 the people of Maine laugh at. Nine tenths of her people, to this 
 day, heartily approve the treaty. It is my full belief that there 
 are not at this moment fifty respectable persons in Maine who 
 would now wish to see the treaty annulled, and the state replac- 
 ed in the condition in which it was, with Mr. Van Buren's ar- 
 bitration before it. and inevitably fixed upon it, by the plight- 
 ed faith of this government, on the 4th of March, 1841. 
 
 Sir, the occasion called for the revision of a very long line 
 of boundary; and what complicated the case, and rendered it 
 more difficult, was, that the territory on the side of the United 
 States belonged to no less than four different states. The es- 
 tablishment of the boundary was to affect Maine, New Hamp- 
 shire, Vermont, and New York. All these states were to be 
 satisfied, if properly they could be. Maine, it is true, was 
 principally concerned. But she did not expect to retain all 
 that she called her own, and yet get more ; and still call it 
 compromise, and an exchange of equivalents. She was not so 
 absurd. I regret some things which occurred ; particularly 
 that while the commissioners of Maine assented, unanimously, 
 to the boundary proposed, on the equivalents proposed, yet, in 
 the paper in which they express that assent, they seem to ar- 
 gue against the act which they were about to perform. This, 
 
r 
 
 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 257 
 
 I think, was a mistake. It had an awkward appearance, and 
 probably gave rise to whatever of dissatisfaction has been ex- 
 pressed in any quarter. 
 
 And now, sir, I am prepared to ask whether the proceedino^ 
 adopted, that is, an attempt to settle this long controversy by 
 the assent of the states concerned, was not wise and discreet, 
 under the circumstances of the case? Sir, the attempt suc- 
 ceeded, and it put an end to a controversy which had subsist- 
 ed, with no little inconvenience to the country, and danger to 
 its peace, through every administration, from that of General 
 Washington to that of Mr. Van Buren. It is due to truth, and 
 to the occasion, to say, that there were difficulties and obsta- 
 cles in the way of this settlement, which had not been over- 
 come under the administration of Washington, or the elder Ad- 
 ams, or Mr. Jcflerson, or Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, or Mr. 
 J. Q. Adams, or General Jackson, or Mr. Van Buren. In 1842,, 
 in the administration of Mr. Tyler, the dispute was settled, and 
 settled satisfactorily. 
 
 Sir, whatever may be said to the contrary, Maine was no 
 loser, but an evident gainer by this adjustment of boundary. 
 She parted with some portion of her territory ; this I would 
 not undervalue; but certainly most of it was quite worthless. 
 Captain Talcot's report, and other evidence, sufficiently estab- 
 lish that fact. 
 
 Maine having, by her own free consent, agreed to part with 
 this portion of territory, received, in the first place, from the 
 Treasury of the United States, $150,000 for her half of the 
 land, a sum which I suppose to be much greater than she would 
 have realized from the sale of it in fifty years. No person, 
 well informed on the subject, can doubt this. 
 
 In the next place, the IJnited States government paid her for 
 the expenses of her civil posse to defend the state, and also for 
 the surveys. On this account she has already received $200,000, 
 and hopes to receive 80 or 100,000 dollars more. If this hope 
 shall be realized, she will have received $450,000 in cash. 
 
 But Maine, I admit, did not look, and ought not to have look- 
 ed, to the treaty as a mere pecuniary bargain. She looked at 
 other things besides money. She took into consideration that 
 she was to enjoy the free navigation of the River St. John 
 I thought this a great object at the time the treaty was made 
 but I had then no adequate conception of its real importance 
 Circumstances which have since taken place show that its ad 
 vantages to the state are far greater than I then supposed 
 That river is to be free to the citizens of Maine for the trans 
 portation down its stream of all unmanufactured articles what- 
 ever. Now, what is this River St. John ? We have heard 
 a vast deal lalelv of the immense value and importance of the 
 
 R 
 
258 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 River Columbia and its navigation ; but I will undertake to 
 say that, for all purposes of human use, the St. John's is worth 
 a hundred times as much as the Columbia is, or ever will be. 
 In point of magnitude, it is one of the most respectable rivers 
 on the eastern side of this part of America. It is longer than 
 the Hudson, and as large as the Delaware. And, moreover, 
 it is a river which has a mouth to it, and that, in the opinion of 
 the member from Arkansas (Mr. Sevier), is a thing of some 
 importance in the matter of rivers. [A laugh.] It is naviga- 
 ble liom the sea, and by steam-boats, to a greater distance than 
 the Columbia. It runs through a good country, and its sources 
 afford a communication with the Aroostook Valley. And I will 
 leave it to the members from Maine to say whether that valley 
 is not one of the finest and most fertile parts of the state. And 
 I will leave it not only to him, but to any man at all acquaint- 
 ed with the facts, whether this free navigation of the St. John's 
 has not at once greatly raised the value of the lands on Fish 
 River, on the Allegash, Madawasca, and the St. Francis. That 
 whole region has no other outlet, and the value of the lumber 
 which has, during this very year, been floated down that riv- 
 er, is far greater than that of all the furs which have descend- 
 ed from Fort Vancouver to the Pacific. On this subject I am 
 enabled to speak with authority, for it has so happened that, since 
 the last adjournment of the Senate, I have looked at an official 
 return of the Hudson's Bay Company, showing the actual ex- 
 tent of the fur trade in Oregon, and I find it to be much less 
 than 1 had supposed. An intelligent gentleman from Missouri 
 estimated the value of that trade, on the west of the Rocky 
 Mountains, at $300,000 annually ; but I find it stated in the 
 last publication by Mr. M'Gregor, of the board of trade in En- 
 gland (a very accurate authority), that the receipts of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company for furs west of the Rocky Mountains, in 
 1828, is placed at 8138,000. I do not know, though the mem- 
 ber from Missouri is likely to know, whether all these furs are 
 brought to Fort Vancouver ; or whether some of them are not 
 sent through the passes in the mountains to Hudson's Bay ; or 
 to Montreal, by the way of the north shore of Lake Superior. 
 I suppose this last to be the case. It is stated, however, by 
 the same authority, that the amount of goods received at Van- 
 couver, and disposed of in payment for furs, is $20,000 annu- 
 ally, and no more. 
 
 Now, sir, this right to carry lumber, and grain, and cattle 
 to the mouth of the River St. John, on equal terms with the 
 British, is a matter of great importance ; it brings lands lying 
 on its upper branches, far in the interior, into direct communi- 
 cation with the sea. Those lands are valuable for timber now, 
 and a portion of them are the best in the state for agriculture. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 259 
 
 The fact has been stated to me on the best authority, that in 
 the Aroostook Valley land is to be found which has yielded 
 more than forty bushels of wheat to the acre, even under the 
 common cultivation of new countries. I must, therefore, think, 
 that the commissioners from Maine were quite right in believ- 
 ing that this was an important acquisition for their state, and 
 one worth the surrender of some acres of barren mountains 
 and impenetrable swamps. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is another class of objections to 
 this treaty boundary on which I wish to submit a few remarks. 
 It has been alleged that the Treaty of Washington ceded very 
 important military advantages on this Continent to the British 
 government. One of these is said to be a military road be- 
 tween the two provinces of New Brunswick and Lower Can- 
 ada ; and the other is the possession of certain heights, well 
 adapted, as is alleged, to military defense. I think the honor- 
 able member from New York, furthest from the chair (Mr. 
 Dix), said, that by the Treaty of Washington a military road 
 was surrendered to England, which she considered as of vital 
 importance to her possessions in America. 
 
 Mr. Dix rose to explain. He had not spoken of a "military 
 road" but of a portion of territory affording a means of milita- 
 ry communication between two of her provinces. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Well, it is the same thing, and we will see how 
 that matter stands. The honorable member says that he said a 
 means of military communication, and not a military road. I 
 am not a military man, and therefore may not so clearly com- 
 prehend, as that member does, the difference between a milita- 
 ry road and a means of military communication [a laugh] ; but 
 I will read from the honorable member's speech, which I have 
 before me, understood to have been revised by himself. The 
 honorable member says: 
 
 " The settlement of the northeastern boundary — one of the most delicate and 
 difficult that has ever arisen between us — affords a striking evidence of our desire 
 to maintain with her the most friendly understanding. We ceded to her a por- 
 tion of territory which she deemed of vital importance as a means of military com- 
 munication between the Canadas and her Atlantic provinces, and which will 
 give her a great advantage in a contest with us. The measure was sustained by 
 the constituted authorities of the country, and I have no desire or intention to call 
 its wisdom in question. But it proves that we were not unwilling to afford Great 
 Britain any facility she required for consolidating her North American posses- 
 sions: acting in peace as though war vk'as not to be expected between the two 
 countries, if we had cherished any ambitious designs in respect to them ; if we 
 had had any other wish than that of continuing on terms of amity with her and 
 them, this great military advantage would never have been conceded to her. 
 
 "On the other hand, I regret to say that her course toward us has been a course 
 of perpetual encroaclimcnt. But, sir, I will not look back upon what is past for 
 the purpose of reviving disturbing recollections." 
 
 I should be very glad if the honorable gentleman would show 
 how England derives so highly important benefits from the 
 
260 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 treaty in a military point of view, or what proof there is that 
 she so considers the matter. 
 
 Mr. Dix said that this treaty had been proclaimed by the 
 President in the latter i)art of the year 1842. Mr. Dix had at 
 that time left the country. The injunction of secrecy had been 
 removed from the proceedings of the Senate in regard to the 
 ratification. Although temporarily absent from the country, 
 Mr. Dix had not lost sight of the state of things at home. He 
 read with interest the debates in the British House of Parlia- 
 ment in regard to the treaty, and he was struck with the fact 
 (and the debates would bear him out in the statement) that dis- 
 tinguished public men deemed the acquisition of territory which 
 had been gained to be one of vital importance as a means of 
 connection and communication between their provinces in 
 Atnerica. As to a military road, he had never traced its 
 course upon the map ; but he believed that it passed along the 
 east bank of the St. John's until that river turned westward, 
 and then along its north bank toward Quebec. But by the 
 award of the King of Holland, the road would have had to 
 run quite round the head of the River St. Francis. By that 
 award our boundary was to pass over the range of highlands, 
 far to the north, and near the St. Lawrence River. But by the 
 Treaty of Washington, the line leaves those heights, and was 
 so thrown back as to pass several miles further to the east- 
 ward. He had some notes here of the debates in Parliament, 
 and, as the gentleman had called upon him for his proof, Mr, 
 Dix would read a few extracts. Here Mr. Dix read sundry 
 extracts from debates in the House of Commons, and said he 
 thought they sustained his position. But he desired to say that 
 he had raised no question touching the wisdom of the provi- 
 sions of the treaty, or made any reflections either on those who 
 negotiated the treaty, or on those who ratified it. 
 
 Mr. Webster proceeded. The passages which the honorable 
 member has read, however pertinent they may be to another 
 question, do not touch the question immediately before us, I 
 understand quite well what was said of the heights ; but no- 
 body, so far as I know, ever spoke of this supposed military 
 road or military communication as of any importance at all, 
 unless it be in a remark, not very intelligible, in an article as- 
 cribed to Lord Palmerston. 
 
 I was induced to refer to this subject, sir, by a circumstance 
 which I have not long been apprised of. Lord Palmerston (if 
 he be the author of certain publications ascribed to him) says 
 that all the important points were given up by Lord Ashburton 
 to the United States. I might here state, too, that Lord Pal- 
 merston called the whole treaty " the Ashburton capitulation," 
 declaring that it yielded every thing that was of importance to 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 261 
 
 Great Britain, and that all its stipulations were to the advantage 
 of the United States, and to the sacrifice of the interests of En- 
 gland. But it is not on such general statements, and such un- 
 just statements, nor on any oft-hand expressions used in debate, 
 though in the roundest terms, that this question must turn. He 
 speaks of this military road, but he entirely misplaces it. The 
 road which runs from New Brunswick to Canada follows the 
 north side of the St. John's to the mouth of the Madawasca, 
 and then turning northwest, foUow's that stream to Lake Te- 
 misquota, and thence proceeds over a depressed part of the 
 highlands till it strikes the St. Lawrence one hundred and sev- 
 enteen miles below Quebec. This is the road which has been 
 always used, and there is no other. 
 
 I admit, it is very convenient for the British government to 
 possess territory through which they may enjoy a road ; it is 
 of great value as an avenue of communication in time of peace; 
 but, as a military communication, it is of no value at all. What 
 business can an army ever have there? Besides, it is no gorge, 
 no pass, no narrow defile, to be defended by a fort. If a fort 
 should be built there, an army could, at pleasure, make a de- 
 tour so as to keep out of the reach of its guns. It is very use- 
 ful, I admit, in time of peace. But does not every body know, 
 military man or not, that unless there is a defile, or some nar- 
 row place through which troops must pass, and which a forti- 
 fication will command, that a mere open road must, in time of 
 war, be in the power of the strongest? If w^e retained the road 
 by treaty, and war came, would not the English take possession 
 of it if they could? Would they be restrained by a regard to 
 the Treaty of Washington? I have never yet heard a reason 
 adduced why this communication should be regarded as the 
 slightest possible advantage in a military point of view. 
 
 But the circumstance, which I have not long known, is, that, 
 by a map published with the speech of the honorable member 
 from Missouri, made in the Senate, on the question of ratifying 
 the treaty, this well-known and long-used road is laid down, 
 probably from the same source of error which misled Lord Pal- 
 inerston, as following the St. John's, on its south side, to the 
 mouth of the St. Francis ; thence along that river to its source, 
 and thence, by a single bound, over the highlands, to the St. 
 Lawrence, near Quebec. This is all imagination. It is called 
 the "Valley Road." Valley Road, indeed! Why, sir, it is 
 represented as running over the very ridge of the most inac- 
 cessible part of the highlands ! It is made to cross abrupt and 
 broken precipices 2000 feet high! It is, at different points of 
 its imngiuary course, from fifty to a hundred miles distant from 
 the real road. All this road is mere imagination. So much, 
 Mr, President, for the great boon of military communication 
 
262 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 conceded to England. The truth is, there is nothing more 
 nor less than a common road, along streams and lakes, and 
 over a country in great part rather flat. It then passes the 
 heights to the St. Lawrence. If war breaks out, we shall take 
 it if we can, and if we need it, of which there is not the slight- 
 est probability. It will never be protected by fortifications, 
 and never can be. It will be just as easy to take it from En- 
 gland in case of war, as it would be to keep possession of it if 
 it were our own. 
 
 In regard to the defense of the heights, I shall dispose of that 
 subject in a few words. There is a ridge of highlands which 
 does approach the River St. Lawrence, although it is not true 
 that they overlook Quebec ; on the contrary, the ridge is at the 
 distance of thirty or forty miles from Quebec. 
 
 It is very natural that military men in England, or, indeed, 
 in any part of Europe, should have attached great importance 
 to these mountains. The great military authority of England 
 — perhaps the highest living military authority — had served in 
 India and on the European continent, and it was natural enough 
 that he should apply European ideas of military defenses to 
 America. But they are quite inapplicable. Highlands such 
 as these were not ordinarily found on the great battle-fields of 
 Europe. They are neither Alps nor Pyrenees ; they have no 
 passes through them, nor roads over them, and never will have. 
 Then there was another reason. In 1839 an ex parte survey 
 was made, as I have said, by Colonel Mudge and Mr. Feather- 
 stonhaugh, if survey it could be called, of the region in the 
 north of Maine, for the use of the British government. I dare 
 say Colonel Mudge is an intelligent and respectable officer ; 
 how much personal attention he gave the subject I do not know. 
 As to Mr. Featherstonhaugh, he has been in our service, and his 
 authority is known to be not worth a straw. These two persons 
 made a report containing this very singular statement: That, 
 in the ridge of highlands nearest the St. Lawrence, there was 
 a great hiatus in one particular place, a gap of thirty or forty 
 miles, in which the elevation did not exceed fifty feet. This 
 was certainly the strangest statement that ever was made.* 
 Their whole report gave but one measurement by the barom- 
 eter, and that measurement stated the height of 1200 feet. A 
 survey and map were made the following year by our own 
 commissioners, Messrs. Graham and Talcot, of the Topograph- 
 ical Corps, and Professor Ren wick, of Columbia College. On 
 this map, the very spot where this gap was said to be situated 
 is dotted over thickly with figures, showing heights varying 
 from 1200 to 2000 feet, and forming one rough and lofty ridge, 
 
 * See page 44 of their printed report. This pretended hiatus in the chain of 
 highlands is included in the space A B in the accompanying map. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 263 
 
 marked by abrupt and almost perpendicular precipices. When 
 this map and report of Messrs. Mudge and Feathcrstonhaugh 
 were sent to England, the British authorities saw that this al- 
 leged gap was laid down as an indefensible point, and it was 
 probably on that ground alone that they desired a line east of 
 that ridge, in order that they might guard against access of a 
 hostile power from the United States. But, in truth, there is no 
 such gap, not at all; our engineers proved this, and we quite 
 well understood it when agreeing to the boundary. Any man 
 of common sense, military or not, must, therefore, now see that 
 nothing can be more imaginary or unfounded than the idea that 
 any importance could attach to the possession of these heights. 
 
 Sir, there are two old and well-known roads to Canada, one 
 by way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu to Montreal. 
 This is the route which armies have traversed so often, in dif- 
 ferent periods of our history. The other leads from the Ken- 
 nebec River to the sources of the Chaudiere and the Du Loup, 
 and so to Quebec. This last was the track of Arnold's march. 
 East of this, there is no practicable communication for troops 
 between Maine and Canada till we get to the Madawasca. We 
 had before us a report from General Wool, while this treaty 
 was in negotiation, in which that intelligent officer declares 
 that it is perfectly idle to think of fortifying any point east of 
 this road. East of Arnold's track it is a mountain region, 
 through which no army can possibly pass into Canada. With 
 General Wool was associated, in this examination, Major Gra- 
 ham, whom I have already mentioned. His report to General 
 Wool, made in the year 1838, clearly points out the Kennebec 
 and Chaudiere road as the only practicable route for an army 
 between Maine and Quebec. He was subsequently employed 
 as a commissioner in the ex parte surveys on the part of the 
 United States. Being an engineer officer of high character for 
 military knowledge and scientific accuracy, his opinion had the 
 w^eight it ought to have, and which will be readily given to it 
 by all who know him. His subsequent and still more thorough 
 acquaintance with this mountain range in its whole extent has 
 only confirmed the judgment which he had previously formed. 
 And, sir, this avenue to Canada, this practicable avenue, and 
 only practicable avenue east of that by way of Lake Champlain, 
 is left now just as it was found by the treaty. The treaty does 
 not touch it, nor in any manner affect it at all. 
 
 But I must go further. I said that the Treaty of Washington 
 was a treaty of equivalents, in which it was expected that each 
 party should give something and receive something. And I 
 am now willing to meet any gentleman, be he a military man 
 or not, who will make the assertion that, in a military point of 
 view, the greatest advantages derived from that treaty were 
 
20 1 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 on the side of Great Britain. It was on this point that I wished 
 to say soniethini^ in reply to an honorable member from New 
 York (Mr. Dickinson), who will have it that in this treaty En- 
 gland supposes that she got the advantage of us. Sir, I do not 
 think the military advantages she obtained by it are worth a 
 rush. But even if they were — if she had obtained advantages 
 of the greatest value — would it not have been fair in the mem- 
 ber from New York to state, nevertheless, whether there were 
 not equivalent military advantages obtained on our side, in other 
 parts of the line 1 VVould it not have been candid and proper 
 in him, when adverting to the military advantage obtained by 
 England, in a communication between New Brunswick and 
 Canada, if such advantages there were, to have stated, on the 
 other hand, and at the same time, the regaining by us of Rouse's 
 Point, at the outlet of Lake Champlain? an advantage which 
 overbalanced all others, forty times told. I must be allowed 
 to say that I certainly never expected that a member from 
 New York, above all other men, should speak of this treaty as 
 conferring military advantages on Great Britain without full 
 equivalents. I listened to it, I confess, with utter astonishment. 
 A distinguished member from that state (Mr. Wright) saw, at 
 the time, very clearly the advantage gained by this treaty to 
 the United States and to New York. He voted willingly for 
 its ratilication, and he never will say that Great Britain obtained 
 a balance of advantages in a military point of view. 
 
 Why, how is the State of New York affected by this treaty? 
 Sir, is not Rouse's Point perfectly well known, and admitted, 
 by every military man, to be the key of Lake Champlain? It 
 commands every vessel passing up or down the lake between 
 New York and Canada. It had always been supposed that 
 this point lay some distance south of the parallel of 45, which 
 was our boundary line with Canada, and, therefore, was within 
 the United States ; and, under this supposition, the United 
 States purchased the land, and commenced the erection of a 
 strong fortress. But a more accurate survey having been 
 made in 1818, by astronomers on both sides, it was found that 
 the parallel of 45 ran south of this fortress, and thus Rouse's 
 Point, with the fort upon it, was found to be in the British do- 
 minions. This discovery created, as well it might, a great sen- 
 sation here. None knows this better than the honorable mem- 
 ber from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), who was then at the 
 head of the Department of War. As Rouse's Point was no 
 longer ours, we sent our engineers to examine the shores of 
 the lake, to find some other place or places which we might 
 fortify. They made a report on their return, saying that there 
 were two other points, some distance south of Rouse's Point, 
 one called Windmill Point, on the east side of the lake, and the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 265 
 
 Other called Stony Point, on the west side, which it became nec- 
 essary now to fortify, and they gave an estimate of the prob- 
 able expense. When this treaty was in process of negotiation, 
 we called for the opinion of military men respecting the value 
 of Rouse's Point, in order to see whether it was highly desira- 
 ble to obtain it. We had their report before us, in which it 
 was stated that the natural and best point for the defense of 
 the outlet of Lake Champlain was Rouse's Point. In fact, any 
 body might see that this was the case who would look at the 
 map. The point projects into the narrowest passage by which 
 the waters of the lake pass into the Richelieu. Any vessel, 
 passing into or out of the lake, must come within point-blank 
 range of the guns of a fortress erected on this point ; and it 
 ran out so far that any such vessel must approach the fort, 
 head on, for several miles, so as to be exposed to a raking fire 
 from the battery, before she could possibly bring her broadside 
 to bear upon the fort at all. It was very different with the 
 points further south. Between them the passage was much 
 wider; so much so, indeed, that a vessel might pass directly 
 between the two, and not be in reach of point-blank shot from 
 either. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson, of New York, here interposed to ask a ques- 
 tion. Did not the Dutch line give us Rouse's Point? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Certainly not. It gave us a little semicircular 
 line running round the fort, but not including what we had 
 possessed before. And, besides, we had rejected the Dutch 
 line, and the whole point now clearly belonged to England. It 
 was all within the British territory. Does the gentleman un- 
 derstand me now? 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. Oh, yes, I understand you now, and I un- 
 derstood you before. 
 
 Mr. Webster. I am glad he does. [A laugh.] I was saying 
 that a vessel might pass between the two points, Windmill 
 Point and Stony Point, and escape point-blank shot from either. 
 Meanwhile, her broadside could be brought to bear upon either 
 of them. The forts would be entirely independent of each 
 other, and, having no communication, could not render each 
 other the least assistance in case of attack. But the military 
 men told us there was no sort of question that Rouse's Point 
 was extremely desirable as a point of military defense. This 
 is plain enough, and I need not spend time to prove it. Of one 
 thing I am certain, that the true road to Canada is by the way 
 of Lake Champlain. That is the old path. I take to myself 
 the credit of having said here, thirty years ago, speaking of the 
 mode of taking Canada, that when an American woodsman 
 undertakes to tell a tree, he does not begin by lopping off the 
 branches, but strikes his ax at once into the trunk. The trunk, 
 
270 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the complaint about it which we hear at this day does not arise 
 entirely from a desire that those connected witli the accompHsh- 
 ment of a measure so important to the peace of the country 
 should not be allowed to derive too much credit from it? 
 
 Mr. President, the destruction of the steam-boat "Caroline," 
 in the harbor of Schlosser, by a British force, in December, 
 1837, and the arrest of Alexander M'Leod, a British subject, 
 composing part of that force, four years afterward, by the au- 
 thorities of New York, and his trial for an alleged murder com- 
 mitted by him on that occasion, have been subjects of remark, 
 here and elsewhere, at this session of Congress. They are 
 connected subjects, and call, in the first place, for a brief his- 
 torical narrative. 
 
 In the year 1837, a civil commotion, or rebellion, which had 
 broken out in Canada, had been suppressed, and many persons 
 engaged in it had fled to the United States. In the autumn of 
 that year, these persons, associating with themselves many oth- 
 ers of lawless character in the United States, made actual war 
 on Canada, and took possession of Navy Island, belonging to 
 England, in the Niagara River. It may be the safest course to 
 give an account of these occurrences from official sources. Mr. 
 Van Buren thus recites the facts, as the government of the Unit- 
 ed States understood them, in his message of December, 1838: 
 
 " I had hoped that the respect for the laws and regard for the peace and honor 
 of their own country, which has ever characterized the citizens of the United 
 States, would have prevented any portion of them from using any means to pro- 
 mote insurrection in the territory of a power with which we are at peace, and 
 with which the United States are desirous of maintaining the most friendly rela- 
 tions. I regret deeply, however, to be obliged to infonn you that this has not 
 been the case. 
 
 " Information has been given to me, derived from official and other sources, 
 that many citizens of the United States have associated together to make hostile 
 incursions from our territoiy into Canada, and to aid and abet insuiTection there, 
 in violation of the obligations and laws of the United States, and in open disre- 
 gard of their own duties as citizens. This information has been in part confirmed 
 by a hostile invasion actually made by citizens of the United States, in conjunc- 
 tion with Canadians and others, and accompanied by a forcible seizure of the 
 property of our citizens, and an application thereof to the prosecution of military 
 operations against the authorities and people of Canada. The results of these 
 criminal assaults upon the peace and order of a neighboring country have been, 
 as was to be expected, fatally destructive to the misguided or deluded persons en- 
 gaged in them, and highly injurious to those in whose behalf they arc professed 
 to have been undertaken. Tlie authorities in Canada, from intelligence received 
 of such intended movements among our citizens, have felt themselves obliged to 
 take precautionary measures against them, have actually embodied the militia, 
 and assumed an attitude to repel an invasion, to which they believed the colonies 
 were e.xposed from the United States. A state of feeling on both sides of the front- 
 ier had thus been produced which called for prompt and vigorous interference." 
 
 The following is the British account of the same occur- 
 rence : 
 
 " In this state of things, a small band of Canadian refugees, who had taken shel- 
 ter in the State of New York, formed a league with a number of the citizens of 
 the United States for the purpose of invading the British territory, not to join a 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERg. 271 
 
 party engaged in civil war, because civil war at that time in Canada there was 
 none, but in order to commit, within the British territory, the crimes of robbery, 
 arson, and murder. 
 
 " By a neglect on the part of that government (New York), which seems to ad- 
 mit of but one explanation, the store-liouses which contained the arms and ammu- 
 nition of the state were loft unguarded, and were consequently broken open by 
 this gang, who carried off thence, in open day, and in the most public manner, 
 cannon, and other inipiemeiits of war. 
 
 "After some days' preparation, tbeso people proceeded, without any interrup- 
 tion from the government or authorities of the State of New York, and under the 
 command of an American citizen, to invade and occupy Navy Island, and part of 
 the British territory ; and, having engaged the steam-boat Caroline, which for 
 tliL-ir s[>ecial service was cut out of the ice, in which she had been inclosed in the 
 
 f)ort of Buifalo, they had used her for tlie purpose of bringing over to Navy Island, 
 rom the United States territoiy, men, anns, ammunition, stores, and provisions. 
 " The preparations made for this invasion of British territory by a band of men 
 organized, armed, and equipped witliiu the United States, and consisting partly of 
 British subjects and partly of American citizens, had induced the British authori- 
 ties to station a military force at Chippewa to repel the threatened invasion, and 
 to defend her majesty's territory. The cominander of that fort, seeing that the 
 Caroline was used as a means of supply and re-enforcement for the invaders, who 
 had occupied Navy Island, judged that the capture and destruction of that vessel 
 would prevent supplies and re-enforccments from passing over to the island, and 
 would, moreover, deprive the force on the island of the means of passing over to 
 the British territoiy on the main land." 
 
 According to the British account, the expedition sent to cap- 
 ture the CaroUne expected to find her at Navy Island ; but 
 when the connmanding officer came round the point of the 
 island in the night, he found that she was moored to the other 
 shore. This did not deter him from making the capture. In 
 that capture, a citizen of the United States, by the name of 
 Durfree, lost his life; the British authorities pretend, by a 
 chance shot by one of his own party ; the American, by a shot 
 from one of the British party. 
 
 This transaction took place on the 29th of December, 1837, 
 in the first year of Mr. Van Buren's administration ; and no 
 sooner was it known here, and made the subject of a com- 
 munication by Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox, than the latter avowed 
 it as an act done by the British authorities, and justified it as a 
 proper and necessary measure of self-defense. Observe, sir, 
 if you please, that the Caroline was destroyed in December, 
 1837, and Mr. Fox's avowal of that destruction, as a govern- 
 ment act, and his justification of it, were made in January fol- 
 lowing, so soon as knowledge of the occurrence reached Wash- 
 ington. Now, sir, if the avowal of the British minister, made 
 in the name of his government, was a sufficiently authentic 
 avowal, why, then, from that moment the government of Great 
 Britain became responsible for the act, and the United States 
 was to look to that government for reparation or redress, or 
 whatever act, or acknowledgment, or apology the case called 
 for. If Mr. Fox's letter was proper proof that the destruction 
 of the Caroline was an act of public force, then the government 
 of Great Britain was directly responsible to the government 
 
268 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 how the question should be settled. They had agreed that 
 there should be an exploration. Mr. Van Buren had proposed 
 and urged arbitration also. England had agreed to this, at his 
 request. The governments had agreed to these two princi- 
 ples, therefore, long before the date of that letter of Lord Pal- 
 merston ; and from that agreement till near the close of Mr. 
 Van Buren's administration, the whole correspondence turned 
 on the arrangement of details of a convention for arbitration, 
 according to the stipulation of the parties. Therefore, it was 
 not on account of any notion that Mr. Van Buren stood up for 
 American questions in a stronger manner than others; it was 
 because these subordinate questions respecting the convention 
 for arbitration had got into so much complexity — so embarrass- 
 ed with projects and counter-projects — had become so difficult 
 and entangled; and because every effort to disentangle them 
 had made the matter worse. On this account alone Lord Pal- 
 nierston had made the remarks. I wish to draw no inference 
 that would be injurious to others, to make no imputation on Mr. 
 Van Buren. But it is necessary to remember that this dispute 
 had run on for years, and was likely to run on forever, though 
 the main principles had already been agreed on, viz., explora- 
 tion and arbitration. It was an endless discussion of details 
 and forms of proceeding, in which the parties receded further 
 and further from each other every day. 
 
 One thing more, sir, by way of explanation. I referred yes- 
 terday to the report made by General Wool in respect to the 
 road from Kennebec. In point of fact, the place which Gen- 
 eral Wool recommended in 1838 to be fortified, was a few 
 miles further east, toward the waters of the Penobscot River, 
 than Arnold's route ; but, generally, the remark I made was 
 perfectly true, that east of that line there has not been a road 
 or passage. The honorable member from New York yester- 
 day produced extracts from certain debates in Parliament re- 
 specting the importance of the territory ceded to England in a 
 military point of view. I beg to refer to some others which I 
 hold in my hand, but which I shall not read — the speeches of 
 Sir Charles Napier, Lord Palmerston, Sir Howard Douglass, 
 &c., as an offset to those quoted by the honorable member. 
 But I do not think it of importance to balance those opinions 
 against each other. Some gentlemen apj)ear to entertain one 
 set of opinions, some another ; and, for my own part, I candid- 
 ly admit, that by both one and the other, facts are overstated. 
 1 do not believe, sir, that any thing, in a military point of view, 
 ceded by us to England, is of any consequence to us or to 
 her, or that any thing important, in that respect, was ceded by 
 either party, except one thing — that is. Rouse's Point. I do 
 believe it was an object of importance to repossess ourselves 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 269 
 
 of the site of that fortress, and to that point I shall proceed to 
 make a few remarks that escaped me yesterday. I do not 
 complain here that the member from New York has underrat- 
 ed the importance of that acquisition. He has not spoken of it. 
 But what I do complain of — if complaint it may be called — is, 
 that when he spoke of cessions made to England by the Treaty 
 of Washington, a treaty which proposed to proceed on the 
 ground of mutual concessions, equivalents, and considerations 
 — when referring to such a treaty to show the concessions 
 made to England, he did not consider it necessary to state, on 
 the other hand, the corresponding cessions made by England 
 to us. And I say again, that the cession of Rouse's Point by her 
 must be, and is considered to be, by those best capable of appre- 
 ciating its value, of more importance than all the cessions we 
 made to England in a military point ; and to show how our 
 government have regarded its importance, let me remind you 
 that, immediately on the close of the last war, although the 
 country was heavily in debt, there was nothing to which the 
 government addressed itself with more zeal than to fortify this 
 position, as the natural defense of Lake Champlain. As early 
 as 1816, the government paid twenty or thirty thousand dollars 
 for the site, and went on with the work at an expense of one 
 hundred thousand dollars ; but in 1818, the astronomers, ap- 
 pointed on both sides, found it was on the English side of the 
 boundary. That, of course, terminated our operations. But 
 that is not all. How did our government regard the acquisi- 
 tion by the Treaty of Washington ? Why, the ink with which 
 that treaty was signed was hardly dry, when the most eminent 
 engineers were dispatched to that place, who examined its 
 strength, and proceeded to renew and rebuild it. And no mil- 
 itary work — not even the fortifications for the defense of the 
 Narrows, approaching the harbor of New York, has been pro- 
 ceeded with by the government with more zeal. Having said 
 so much, sir, I will merely add, that if gentlemen desire to ob- 
 tain more information on this important subject, they may con- 
 sult the head of the engineer corps, Colonel Totten, and Com- 
 modore Morris, who went there by instructions to examine it, 
 and who reported thereon. 
 
 And here, sir, I conclude my remarks on the question of the 
 northeastern boundary. 
 
 And I now leave it to the country to say, whether this ques- 
 tion — this troublesome, and annoying, and dangerous question 
 — which had lasted through the ordinary length of two genera- 
 tions, having now been taken up in 1841, was not well settled, 
 and promptly settled ? Whether it was not well settled for 
 Maine and Massachusetts, and well settled for the whole coun- 
 try ? And whether, in the opinion of all fair and candid men, 
 
270 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the complaint about it which we hear at this day does not arise 
 entirely from a desire that those connected with the accomphsh- 
 ment of a measure so important to the peace of the country 
 should not be allowed to derive too much credit from it? 
 
 Mr. President, the destruction of the steam-boat "Caroline," 
 in the harbor of Schlosser, by a British force, in December, 
 1837, and the arrest of Alexander M'Leod, a British subject, 
 composing part of that force, four years afterward, by the au- 
 thorities of New York, and his trial for an alleged murder com- 
 mitted by him on that occasion, have been subjects of remark, 
 here and elsewhere, at this session of Congress. They are 
 connected subjects, and call, in the fust place, for a brief his- 
 torical narrative. 
 
 In the year 1837, a civil commotion, or rebellion, which had 
 broken out in Canada, had been suppressed, and many persons 
 engaged in it had fled to the United States. In the autumn of 
 that year, these persons, associating with themselves many oth- 
 ers of lawless character in the United States, made actual war 
 on Canada, and took possession of Navy Island, belonging to 
 England, in the Niagara River. It may be the safest course to 
 give an account of these occurrences from official sources. Mr. 
 Van Buren thus recites the facts, as the government of the Unit- 
 ed States understood them, in his message of December, 1838: 
 
 " I had hoped that the respect for the laws and regard for the peace and honor 
 of their own country, which has ever characterized the citizens of the United 
 States, would have prevented any portion of them from using any means to pro- 
 mote insurrection in the territory of a power with which we are at peace, and 
 with which the United States are desirous of maintaining the most friendly rela- 
 tions. I regret deeply, however, to be obliged to infoiTa you that this has not 
 been the case. 
 
 " Information has been given to me, derived from official and other sources, 
 that many citizens of the United States have associated together to make hostile 
 incursions from our territory into Canada, and to aid and abet insuiTection there, 
 in violation of tiie obligations and laws of the United States, and in open disre- 
 gard of their own duties as citizens. This information has been in part confirmed 
 by a hostile invasion actually made by citizens of the United States, in conjunc- 
 tion with Canadians and others, and accompanied by a forcible seizure of the 
 property of our citizens, and an application thereof to the prosecution of military 
 operations against the authorities and people of Canada. The results of these 
 criminal assaults upon the peace and order of a neighboring country have been, 
 as was to be expected, fatally destructive to the misguided or deluded persons en- 
 gaged in them, and highly injurious to those in whose behalf they arc professed 
 to have been undertaken. The authorities in Canada, from intelligence received 
 of such intended movements among our citizens, have felt themselves obliged to 
 take precautionary measures against them, have actually embodied the militia, 
 and assumed an attitude to repel an invasion, to which they believed the colonies 
 were exposed from the United States. A state of feeling on both sides of the front- 
 ier had thus been produced which called for prompt and vigorous interference." 
 
 The following is the British account of the same occur- 
 rence : 
 
 " In this state of things, a small band of Canadian refugees, who had taken shel- 
 ter in the State of New York, formed a league with a number of the citizens of 
 the United States for the purpose of invading the British territory, not to join a 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 271 
 
 party engaged in civil war, because civil war at that time in Canada there was 
 noue, but in order to coiurait, within the British territory, the crimes of robbery, 
 arson, and murder. 
 
 " By a neglect on the part of that government (New York), which seems to ad- 
 mit of but one explanation, the store-houses which contained the arms and ammu- 
 nition of the state were left unguarded, and were consequently broken open by 
 this gang, who carried off thence, in open day, and in the most public manner, 
 cannon, and other implements of war. 
 
 " After some days' preparation, these people proceeded, without any interrup- 
 tion from tiie government or authorities of the State of New York, and under the 
 command of an American citizen, to invade and occupy Navy Island, and part of 
 the British territory ; and, having engaged the steam-boat Caroline, which for 
 their special service was cut out of the ice, in which she had been inclosed in the 
 
 f)ort of Butfalo, they had used her for the purpose of bringing over to Navy Island, 
 rom the United States temtoiy, men, anns, ammunition, stores, and provisions. 
 " The preparations made for this invasion of British territory by a band of men 
 organized, armed, and equipped within the United States, and consisting partly of 
 British subjects and partly of American citizens, had induced the British authori- 
 ties to station a military force at Chippewa to repel the threatened invasion, and 
 to defend her majesty's territory. The commander of that foi't, seeing that the 
 Caroline was used as a means of supply and re-enforcement for the invaders, who 
 had occupied Navy Island, judged that the capture and destruction of that vessel 
 ■would prevent supplies and re-enforcements from passuig over to the island, and 
 would, moreover, deprive the force on the island of the means of passing over to 
 the British territoiy on the main land." 
 
 According to the British account, the expedition sent to cap- 
 ture the Caroline expected to find her at Navy Island ; but 
 when the commanding officer came round the point of the 
 island in the night, he found that she was moored to the other 
 shore. This did not deter him from making the capture. In 
 that capture, a citizen of the United States, by the name of 
 Durfree, lost his life ; the British authoi'ities pretend, by a 
 chance shot by one of his own party ; the American, by a shot 
 from one of the British party. 
 
 This transaction took place on the 29th of December, 1837, 
 in the first year of Mr. Van Buren's administration ; and no 
 sooner was it known here, and made the subject of a com- 
 munication by Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox, than the latter avowed 
 it as an act done by the British authorities, and justified it as a 
 proper and necessary measure of self-defense. Observe, sir, 
 if you please, that the Caroline was destroyed in December, 
 1837, and Mr. Fox's avowal of that destruction, as a govern- 
 ment act, and his justification of it, were made in January fol- 
 lowing, so soon as knowledge of the occurrence reached Wash- 
 ington. Now, sir, if the avowal of the British minister, made 
 in the name of his government, was a sufficiently authentic 
 avowal, why, then, from that moment the government of Great 
 Britain became responsible for the act, and the United States 
 was to look to that government for reparation or redress, or 
 whatever act, or acknowledgment, or apology the case called 
 for. If Mr. Fox's letter was proper proof that the destruction 
 of the Caroline was an act of public force, then the government 
 of Great Britain was directly responsible to the government 
 
272 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of the United States ; and of the British government directly, 
 and the British government only, was satisfaction to be de- 
 manded. Nothing was immediately done ; the matter was 
 sufi'ered to lie, and grow cool; but it afterward became a ques- 
 tion at what time the United States government did first learn, 
 by sufficient evidence and authority, that the British govern- 
 ment had avowed the destruction of the Caroline as its own 
 act. Now, in the first place, there was the direct avowal of 
 Mr. Fox, made at the time, and never disapproved. This 
 avowal, and the account of the transaction, reached London in 
 February, 1838. Lord Palmerston thinks that, in conversations 
 with Mr. Stevenson not long subsequent, he intimated distinctly 
 that the destruction of the vessel would turn out to be justifi- 
 able. At all events, it is certain that, on the 22d day of May, 
 1838, in an official note to Lord Palmerston, written by instruc- 
 tions from his government, demanding reparation for her de- 
 struction, Mr. Stevenson did state that "the government of the 
 United States did consider that transaction as an outrage upon 
 the United States, and a violation of United States territory, 
 committed by British troops, planned and executed by the 
 Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada." It is clear, then, that 
 the government of the United States so understood the matter 
 when it gave Mr. Stevenson the instructions on which he made 
 this demand. The administration knew, full well, that the ex- 
 pedition was a public expedition, set on foot by the authorities 
 of Canada, avowed here immediately by Mr. Fox as an act for 
 which the British government took upon itself the responsibil- 
 ity, and never disavowed by that government at any time or 
 in any way. 
 
 And now, sir, why was this aggression on the territory of the 
 United States — why was this indignity suffered to remain unvin- 
 dicated and unredressed for three years? Why was no answer 
 made, and none insisted on, to Mr. Stevenson's official and di- 
 rect demand for reparation? The jealous guardians of national 
 honor, so tenaciously alive to what took place in 1842, what 
 opiate had drugged their patriotism for so many years ? Whose 
 fault was it that, up to 1841, the government of Great Britain 
 had been brought to no acknowledgment, no explanation, no 
 apology? This long and unbroken slumber over public out- 
 rage and national indignity, who indulged in it? Nay, if the 
 government of the United States thought it had not sufficient 
 evidence that the outrage was, as it had declared it to be itself, 
 a public outrage, then it was a private outrage, the invasion of 
 our territory, and the murder of an American citizen, without 
 any justification, or pretense of justification ; and had it not be- 
 come high time that such an outrage was redressed? 
 
 Sir, there is no escape from this. The administration of Mr. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 278 
 
 Van Buren knew perfectly well that the de.struction of the Car- 
 oline was an act of public force, done by the British authori- 
 ties in Canada. They knew it had never been disavowed at 
 home. The act was a wrongful one on the part of the Cana- 
 dian forces. They had no right to invade the territory of the 
 United States. It was an aggression for which satisfaction 
 was due, and should have been insisted on immediately, and 
 insisted on perseveringly. But this was not done. The ad- 
 ministration slept, and slept on, and would have slept till this 
 time, if it had not been waked by the arrest of M'Leod. Being 
 on this side of the line, and making foolish and false boasts of 
 his martial achievements, M'Leod was arrested in November, 
 1840, on a charge for the murder of Durfree in capturing the 
 Caroline, and committed to prison by the authorities of New 
 York. He was bailed ; but violence and mobs overawed the 
 courts, and he was recommitted to jail. This was an important 
 and very exciting occurrence. Mr. Fox made a demand for 
 his immediate release. The administration of Mr. Van Buren 
 roused itself, and looked round to ascertain its position. Mr. 
 Fox again asserted that the destruction of the Caroline was an 
 act of public force, done by public authority, and avowed by 
 the English government, as the American government had 
 long before known. To this Mr. Forsyth replied, in a note of 
 December 26, 1840, thus: "If the destruction of the Caroline 
 was a public act of persons in her majesty's service, obeying 
 the order of their superior authorities, this fact has not been 
 before communicated to the government of the United States 
 by a person authorized to make the admission." Certainly, 
 Mr. President, it is not easy to reconcile this language with 
 the instructions under which Mr. Stevenson made his demand, 
 of May, 1838, and which demand he accompanied with the 
 declaration that the act was planned and executed by the au- 
 thorities of Canada. Whether the act of the governor had or 
 had not been approved at home, the government of the United. 
 States, one would think, could hardly need to be informed, in , 
 1840, that that act was committed by persons in her majesty's 
 service, obeying the order of their superior authorities. Mr. 
 Forsyth adds, very properly, that it will be for the courts to 
 decide on the validity of the defense. It is worthy of remark, 
 that in this letter of December 26, 1840, Mr. Forsyth complains 
 that up to that day the government of the United States had 
 not become acquainted with the views and intentions of the 
 government of England respecting the destruction of the Caro- 
 line ! Now, Mr. President, this was the state of things in the 
 winter of 1840, '41, and on the 4th of March, 1841, when Gen- 
 eral William Henry Harrison became President of the United 
 States. 
 
 S 
 
274 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 On the 12th of tliat same month of March, Mr. Fox wrote to 
 the Dejmrtment of State a letter, in which, after referring to 
 his original corres])on(lence with Mr. Forsyth, in which he had 
 avowed and justified the capture of the Caroline as an act of 
 necessary defense, he proceeds to say : 
 
 " The uuclorsigned is directed, in the first place, to make known to the govern- 
 ment of the Uuittxl iStale.s, tliat her majesty's government entirely approve of the 
 course })ursue(l by the undersigned in that cornispondence, and of llie language 
 adopted by him in the official letters above mentioned. 
 
 " And tlie undersigned is now instructed again to demand from the government 
 of the United States, formally, in the name of the British government, the imme- 
 diate release of Mr. Alexander M'Leod. 
 
 " Th(! grounds upon which the British government make this demand upon the 
 goverinnent of the United States are these : That the transaction, on account of 
 which Mr. M'Leod has been arrested and is to be put upon his trial, was a trans- 
 action of a public character, planned and executed by persons duly empowered 
 by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps and do any acts which 
 might be necessary for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the pro- 
 tection of her majesty's subjects; and that, consequently, those subjects of her 
 majesty who engaged in that transaction, were performing an act of public duty 
 for which they can not be made personally and individually answerable to the 
 laws and tribunals of any foreign country. 
 
 " The transaction may have been, as her majesty's government are of opinion 
 that it was, a justifiable em[)loymeiit of force for the purpose of defending the 
 British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and 
 American pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and organize themselves 
 within the territory of the United States, had actually invaded and occupied a 
 portion of the territory of her majesty ; or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. 
 Forsyth in his note to the undersigned of the 2Gth of December, ' a most unjusti- 
 fiable invasion, in time of peace, of the territory of the United States.' But it is a 
 question essentially of a political and international kind, which can be discussed 
 and settled only between the two governments, and which the courts of justice 
 of the State of New York can not by possibility have any means of judging, or 
 any right of deciding," 
 
 The British government insisted that it must have been 
 known, and was well known, long before, that it had avowed 
 and justified the capture of the Caroline, and taken upon itself 
 the responsibility. Mr. Forsyth, as you have seen, sir, in his 
 note of December 26th, had said, that fact had not been before 
 communicated by a person authorized to make the admission. 
 Well, sir, then, what was now to be done ? Here was a new, 
 fresh, and direct avowal of the act by the British government, 
 and a formal demand for M'Leod's immediate release. And 
 how did General Harrison's administration treat this ? Sir, 
 just as it ought to have treated it. It was not poor and mean 
 enough in its intercourse with a foreign government to make 
 any reflections on its j^redecessor, or appear to strike out a new 
 path for itself. It did not seek to derogate, in the slightest de- 
 gree, from the propriety of what had been said and done by 
 Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Forsyth, whatever eminent example it 
 might have found for such a course of conduct. No ; it rath- 
 er adopted what Mr. Forsyth had said in December, to wit, 
 that at that time no authentic avowal had been communicated 
 to the United States. But now an avowal had been made, on 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 275 
 
 tbe authority of the government itself; and General Harrison 
 acted, and acted rightly, on the case made by this avowal. 
 And what opinions did he form, and what course did he pur- 
 sue, in a crisis, and in regard to transactions so intimately con- 
 nected with the peace and honor of the country ? 
 
 Sir, in the first place, General Harrison was of opinion that 
 the entering of the United States territory by British troops, 
 for the purpose of capturing or destroying the Caroline, was 
 unjustifiable. That it was an aggression — a violation of the 
 territory of the United Slates. Not that the British forces 
 might not have destroyed that vessel, if they could have found 
 her on their own side of the line ; for she was unlawfully em- 
 ployed — she was assisting to make war on Canada. But she 
 could not be followed into a port of the United States, and 
 there captured. This was an offense to the dignity and sover- 
 eignty of this government, for which apology and satisfaction 
 ought long since to have been obtained, and which apology 
 and satisfaction it was not yet too late to demand. This was 
 General Harrison's opinion. 
 
 In the next place, and on the other hand. General Harrison 
 was of opinion that the arrest and detention of M'Leod were 
 contrary to the law of nations. M'Leod was a soldier, acting 
 under the authority of his government, and obeying orders 
 which he was bound to obey. It was absurd to say that a sol- 
 dier, who must obey orders or be shot, may still be hanged if 
 he does obey them. Was General Harrison to turn aside from 
 facing the British lion, and fall on a lamb? Was he to quail 
 before the crown of England, and take vengeance on a private 
 soldier ? No, sir, that was not in character for William Henry 
 Harrison. He held the British government responsible ; he 
 died, to the great grief of his country, but in the time of his 
 successor that responsibility was justly appealed to, and satis- 
 factorily fulfilled. 
 
 Mr. Fox's letter, written under instructions from Lord Pal- 
 merston, was a little peremptory, and some expressions were 
 regarded as not quite courteous and conciliatory. This caused 
 some hesitation ; but General Harrison said that he would not 
 cavil at phrases, since, in the main, the British complaint was 
 well founded, and we ought at once to do what we could to 
 place ourselves right. 
 
 Sir, the members of the administration were all of one mind 
 on this occasion. General Harrison, himself a man of large 
 general reading and long experience, was decidedly of opinion 
 that M'Leod could not be lawfully holden to answer, in the 
 courts of New York, for what had been done by him as a sol- 
 dier, under superior orders. All the members of the adminis- 
 tration were of the same opinion, without doubt or hesitation. 
 
276 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPKRS. 
 
 I mav, without impropriety, say, that Mr. Crittenden, Mr. Ew- 
 ing, Mr, Bell, Mr. Badger, and Mr. Granger were not all like- 
 ly to come to an erroneous conclusion on this question of pub- 
 lic law, after they had given it full consideration and examina- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Fox's letter was answered, and from that answer I will 
 read an extract : 
 
 " Mr. Fox informs tho government of the United States that he is instructed to 
 make known to it that the government of her majesty entirely approve the course 
 pursued hy him in his correspondence with Mr. Forsyth in December last, and the 
 language adopted by him on that occasion ; and that the government have instruct- 
 ed him 'again todemand from the government of the United States, formally, in the 
 name of the British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander M'Leod;' 
 that ' the grounds upon which the British government make this demand upon 
 the government of the United States are these : That the transaction on account 
 of which Mr. M'Leod has been arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was a 
 tran.saction of a public character, planned and executed by persons duly emj)ow- 
 ered by her majesty's colonial authorities to take any steps and to do any acta 
 which might be nece.ssary for tVie defense of her majesty's territories, and for the 
 protection of her majesty's subjects; and that, consequently, those subjects of her 
 majesty who engaged in that transaction were performing an act of public duly • 
 for which they can not be made personally and individually answerable to tho 
 laws and tribunals of any foreign country.' 
 
 " Tho President is not certain that he understands precisely the meaning in- 
 tended by her majesty's government to be conveyed by the foregoing instruction. 
 
 " This doubt has occasioned with the President some hesitation ; but he inclines 
 to take it for granted that the main purpose of the instruction was to cause it to 
 be signified to the government of the United States that the attack on the steam- 
 boat ' Caroline' was an act of public force, done by the British colonial authori- 
 ties, and fully recognized by the queen's government at home, and that, conse- 
 qiiently, no individual concerned in that transaction can, according to the just 
 principles of the laws of nations, be held personally answerable, in the ordinary 
 courts of law, as for a private offense ; and that, upon this avowal of her majes- 
 ty's government, Alexander M'Leod, now imprisoned on an indictment for mur- 
 der, alleged to have been committed in that attack, ought to be released by such 
 proceedings as are usual and are suitable to the case. 
 
 " The President adopted the conclusion that nothing more than this could have 
 been intended to be expressed, from the consideration that her majesty's govern- 
 ment must be fully aware that, in the United States, as in England, persons con- 
 fined under judicial process can be released from that confinement only by judi- 
 cial process. In neither country, as the undersigned supposes, can the arm of 
 the executive power interfere,, directly or forcibly, to release or deliver the pris- 
 oner. His discharge must be sought in a manner conformable to the principles 
 of law and the proceedings of courts of judicature. If any indictment like that 
 which has been found against Alexander M'Leod, and under circumstances like 
 those wliich belong to his case, were ponding against an individual in one of the 
 courts of England, there is no doubt that the law officer of the crown might en- 
 ter a nolle prosequi, or that the prisoner might cause himself to be brought up on 
 habeas corpus, and discharged, if his ground of discharge should be adjudged suf- 
 ficient, or that he might prove the same facts, and insist on the same defense or 
 exemption on his trial. 
 
 "All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the laws and prac- 
 tice of both countries. But the undersigned does not suppose that, if such a case 
 were to arise in England, the power of the executive government could be exert- 
 ed in any more direct manner. 
 
 " Even in the case of embassadors and other public ministers, whose right to ex- 
 emption from arrest is personal, I'equiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere 
 fact of dij)lomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made a highly pe- 
 nal offense, if the an-est be actually made, it must be discharged by application to 
 the courts of law. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 277 
 
 " It is understood that Alexander M'Leod is holden. as well on civil as on cnm- 
 itial process, for acts alleged to have been done by hitn in the attack on the ' Car- 
 oline,' and his defense or ground of acquittal must be the same in both cases. 
 And this strongly illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety of the 
 foregoing observations ; since it is quite clear that the executive government can 
 not interfere to arrest a civil suit between private parties in any stage of its prog- 
 ress, but that such suit must go on to its regular judicial termination. If, there- 
 fore, any course ditfereut from such as have been now mentioned was in contem- 
 plation of lier majesty's government, something would seem to have been expects 
 ed from the government of the United States as little conformable to the laws 
 and usages of the English government as to those of the United States, and to 
 which this government can not accede. 
 
 " The government of the United States, therefore, acting upon the presumption 
 which is already adopted, that nothing extraordinary or unusual was expected or 
 requested of it, decided, on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such meas- 
 ures as the occasion and its own duty appeared to require. 
 
 " In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. Forsyth, the Secre- 
 tary of State of the United States, observes, that, ' if the destruction of the Caro- 
 line was a public act of persons in her majesty's service, obeying the order of 
 their superior authorities, this fact has not beeu before communicated to the gov- 
 ernment of the United States by a person authorized to make the admission ; and 
 it will be for the court, which has taken cognizance of the offense with which 
 Mr. M'Leod is charged, to decide iipon its validity when legally established be» 
 fore it;' and adds: 'The President deems this a jH'oper occasion to I'emind the 
 government of her Britannic majesty that the case of the Caroline has been long 
 since brought to the attention of her majesty's principal Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs, who, up to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. 
 It is hoped that the government of her ma,iesty will perceive the importance of 
 no longer leaving the government of the United States uninformed of its views 
 and intentions upon a subject which has naturally produced much exasperation, 
 and which has led to such grave consequences.' 
 
 " The communication of the fact that the destruction of the ' Caroline' was an 
 act of public force by the British authorities being formally communicated to the 
 government of the United States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a different 
 aspect. 
 
 " The government of the United States entertains no doubt that, after this 
 avowal of the transaction as a public transaction, authorized and undertaken by 
 the British authorities, individuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of 
 public law and the general usage of civilized states, to be holden personally re- 
 sponsible in the ordinary tribunals of law for their participation in it. And the 
 President presumes that it can hardly be necessaiy to say that the American peo- 
 ple, not disti-ustful of their ability to redress public wrongs by public means, can 
 not desire the punishment of individuals when the act complained of is declared 
 to have been the act of the govei'nmeut itself. 
 
 '■ Soou after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was given to the attorn- 
 ey-general of the United States from this department, by direction of the Presi- 
 tlent, which fully sets forth the opinions of this government on the subject of Mr. 
 M'Leod's imprisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has the 
 lionor herewith to inclose. 
 
 "The indictment against M'Leod is pending in a state court; but his rights, 
 whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to be presumed, than if he were 
 lioldeu to answer in one of this government. 
 
 " He demands immunity from personal responsibility by virtue of the law of 
 nations ; and that law, in civilized states, is to be respected in all courts. None 
 is either so high or so low as to escape from its authority in casefe to which its 
 rules and principles apply." 
 
 And now, sir, who will deny that this decision was entirely 
 correct? Who will deny that this arrest of M'Leod, and this 
 threatening to hang him, was just cause of offense to the British 
 government? Sir, what should we have thought ourselves, in 
 a like case ? If United States troops, by the lawful authority 
 
278 DIPLOMATIC A\D OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 of their government, were ordered to pass over the h'ne of 
 boundary for any purpose— retahation, reprisal, fresh pursuit 
 of an enen)y, or any thing else — and the government of the ter- 
 ritory invaded, not bringing our government to account, but 
 sleeping three years over the affront, should then snatch up one 
 of our citizens found in its jurisdiction, and who had been one 
 of the force, and proceed to try, condemn, and execute him, sir, 
 would not the whole country have risen up like one man? 
 Should we have submitted to it for a moment? Suppose that 
 now, by order of the President, and in conformity to law, an 
 American army should enter Canada, or Oregon, for any pur- 
 pose which the government of the United States thought just, 
 and which it was ready to defend, and the British government^ 
 turning away from demanding responsibility or satisfaction from 
 us, should seize an individual soldier, try him, convict him, and 
 execute him; sir, should we not declare war at once, or make 
 war? Would this be submitted to for a moment? Is there a 
 man, with an American heart in his bosom, who would keep 
 still, and be silent, in the face of such an outrage on public law, 
 and such an insult to the flag and sovereignty of his country? 
 Who would endure that an American soldier, acting in obedi- 
 ence to lawful authority, and with the eagle and the stars and 
 stripes over his head, should be arrested, tried, and executed 
 as a private murderer? Sir, if we had received such an insult, 
 and atonement had not been instantly made, we should have 
 avenged it at any expense of treasure and of blood. A manly 
 feeling of honor and character, therefore, a sense of justice, and 
 respect for the opinion of the civilized world, a conviction of 
 what would have been our own conduct in a like case, all called 
 on General Harrison to do exactly what he did. 
 
 England had assumed her proper responsibility, and what 
 was it? She had made an aggression upon the United States 
 by entering her territory for a belligerent purpose. She had 
 invaded the sanctity of our territorial rights. As to the mere 
 destruction of the vessel, if perpetrated on the Canadian side, 
 it would have been quite justifiable. The persons engaged in 
 that vessel were, it is to be remembered, violating the laws of 
 their own country, as well as the law of nations ; "some of them, 
 suffered for that offense, and I wish all had suffered. 
 
 Mr. Allen here desired to know where the proof was of the 
 fact that the Caroline was so engaged. Was there any record 
 of the fact? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, there is proof— abundant proof The 
 fact that the vessel was so engaged was, I believe, pretty well 
 proved on the trial and conviction of Van Rensselaer. But, 
 besides, there is abundant proof in the Department of State, in 
 the evidence taken in Canada by the authorities there, and sent 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 279 
 
 to Great Britain, and which could be confirmed by any body 
 who Hved any where from Buflljilo down to Schlosser. It was 
 proved by the res gesUe. What was the condition and conduct 
 of the CaroHne ? Mr. Stevenson, making the best case he 
 could for the United States, said that she was cleared out at 
 Buffalo, in the latter part of December, to ply between Buffalo 
 and Schlosser, on the same side of the river, a few miles below. 
 Lord Palmerston, with his usual sarcasm, and with more than 
 a usual occasion for the application of that sarcasm, said, *' It 
 was very true she was cleared out; but Mr. Stevenson forgot 
 that she was also ' cut out' of the ice in which she had been 
 laid up for the winter ; and that, in departing from Buffalo, in- 
 stead of going down to Schlosser, she went down to Navy Isl- 
 and;" and his lordship asked, " What new outbreak of traffic 
 made it necessary to have a steam-boat plying, in the depth of 
 winter, between Buffalo and Schlosser, when exactly between 
 those two places on the shore there was a very convenient rail- 
 road?" I will most respectfully suggest all this to the consid- 
 eration of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 
 And, as further evidence, I will state the entire omission of the 
 government of the United States, during the whole of Mr. Van 
 Burcn's administration, to make any demand for reparation for 
 the property destroyed. So far as I remember, such a sugges- 
 tion was never made. But one thing I do very well remember, 
 and that is, that a person who had some interest in the property 
 came to the city of Washington, and thought of making an ap- 
 plication to the governmept, in the time of Mr. Van Buren, for 
 indemnity. 
 
 Well, he was told that the sooner he shut his mouth on that 
 subject the better, for he himself, knowing that the purpose to 
 which the vessel was to be applied came within the purview 
 of the statutes of the United States against fitting out hostile 
 expeditions against countries with which the United States 
 were at peace, was liable to prosecution ; and he ever after- 
 ward, profiting by this friendly admonition, held his peace. 
 That was another piece of evidence which I respectfully sub- 
 mit to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 
 
 Well, sir, M'Leod's case went on in the court of New York, 
 and I was utterly surprised at the decision of that court on the 
 habeas corpus. On the peril and at the risk of my professional 
 reputation, I now say, that the opinion of the court of New 
 York in that case is not a respectable opinion, either on account 
 of the result at which it arrives, or the reasoning on which it 
 proceeds.* 
 
 * Tliis opinion has been ably and learnedly reviewed by Judge Tallmadge, of 
 the Superior Court of the City of New York. Of this review, the late Chief jus- 
 tice Spencer says, " It refutes and overthrows the opinion most amply." Chan- 
 
280 ini'LOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAIT-RS. 
 
 M'Leod was tried and acquitted, there being no proof that 
 he had killed Durlree. Congress afterward passed an act, that 
 if such coses should arise hereafter, they should be immediately 
 transferred to the courts of the United States. That was a 
 necessary and a proper law. It was requisite, in order to en- 
 able the government of tlie United States to maintain the peace 
 of the country. And it was perfectly constitutional; because 
 it is a just and important principle — quite a fundamental princi- 
 ple, indeed — that the judicial power of the general government 
 should be co-extensive with its legislative and executive pow- 
 ers. When the authority and duty of this government is to be 
 judicially discussed and decided, that decision must be in the 
 courts of the United States, or else that which holds the govern- 
 ment together would become a band of straw. M'Leod having 
 been acquitted, this result put an end to all question concerning 
 his case ; and Congress having passed a law providing for such 
 cases in future, it only remained that a proper explanation and 
 apology — all that a nation of high honor could ask, or a nation 
 of high honor could give — should be obtained for the violation 
 of territorial sovereignty ; and that was obtained. Not obtain- 
 ed in Mr. Van Buren's time, but obtained, concurrently with 
 the settlement of other questions, in 1842. 
 
 Before Mr. Fox's letter was answ^ered, sir, the President had 
 directed the attorney-general to proceed to New York, with 
 copies of the official correspondence, and with instructions to 
 signify to the Governor of New York the judgment which had 
 been formed here. These instructions have been referred to, 
 and they are public. The moment was critical. A mob had 
 arrested judicial proceedings on the frontier. The trial of 
 M'Leod was expected to come on immediately at Lockport; 
 and what would be the fate of the prisoner, between the opin- 
 ions entertained inside of the court-house, and lawless violence 
 without, no one could foresee. The instructions were in the 
 spirit of the answer to Mr. Fox's letter. And I now call on 
 the honorable member from New York to furnish authority for 
 his charge, made in his speech the other day, that the govern- 
 ment of the United States had "interfered, directly and palpa- 
 bly," with the proceedings of the courts of New York. It is 
 untrue. He has no authority, not a particle, for any such state- 
 ment. All that was done was made public. He has no other 
 authority for what he said than the public papers ; they do not 
 bear him out. To say, on the ground of what is public, that 
 the government of the United States interfered, " directly and 
 
 cellor Kent says of it, " It is conclusive upon every point. I should have been 
 proud if I had heen the author of it." The opinion of the Supreme Court of New 
 York is not hkely to be received, at home or abroad, as ttio Americaa under- 
 standing of an important piinciple of public law. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 281 
 
 palpably," with the proceedings in New York, is not only un- 
 true, but ridiculous. There was no demand for the delivery 
 of M'Leod to the United States ; there was no attempt to arrest 
 the proceedings of the New York court. Mr. Fox was told 
 that these proceedings must go on until they were judicially 
 terminated ; that M'Leod was in confinement by judicial pro- 
 cess, and could only be released by judicial process under the 
 same authority. All this is plainly stated in Mr. Crittenden's 
 instructions, and no man who reads that paper can fall into 
 any mistake about it. There was no " direct and palpable" in- 
 terference with the New York courts, nor any interference at 
 all. The Governor of New York did not think there was, nor 
 did any body else ever think there was. 
 
 Mr. President, the honorable senator from Ohio (Mr. Allen) 
 bestowed, I believe, a very considerable degree of attention 
 upon topics connected with the Treaty of Washington. It so 
 happened that my engagements did not permit me to be in the 
 Senate during the delivery of any considerable portion of that 
 speech. I was in occasionally, however, and heard some parts 
 of it. I have not been able to find any particular account of 
 the honorable member's reinarks. •In the only printed speech 
 which I have been able to lay my hands on, it is said that he 
 took occasion to speak, in general terms, of various topics — 
 enumerating them — embraced in the treaty of 1842. As I have 
 not seen those remarks, I shall not now undertake to make any 
 further allusion to them. If I should happen to see them here- 
 after, so far as I may believe that they have not been answered 
 by what I have already said, or may now say, I may, perhaps, 
 deem it worth while to embrace some opportunity of taking 
 such notice of them as to me they may seem to require. 
 
 Mr. Allen. I will now state, for the satisfaction of the sena- 
 tor, the general substance of what I said on the subject. If he 
 so desires, I will now proceed to do so. 
 
 Mr. Webster. I think that, upon the whole, when the gentle- 
 man shall furnish the public with a copy of his speech, I may, 
 perhaps, have a more proper opportunity to pay attention to 
 it, especially as I have to say something of other speeches, 
 which may at present occupy as much of the time of the Sen- 
 ate as can well be devoted to this subject. And now, sir, paulo 
 niajora canamiis. 
 
 An honorable member from New York nearest the chair 
 (Mr. Dickinson) made a speech on this subject. I propose to 
 take some notice of that speech. But first I must remark, that 
 the honorable gentleman did not seem to be satisfied with his 
 own light ; he borrowed somewhat extensively. He borrow- 
 ed, and incorporated into his speech, by way of a note, what 
 •he entitles, ^^ Extracts from the Speech of Mr. C.J.Ingersoll in 
 
282 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the House of Representatives." Well, then, my first business is 
 to examine a little this jewel which the honorable gentleman 
 chooses to work into his own diadem ; and I shall do it un- 
 moved in temper, I hope, and, at the same time, I do not mean 
 to omit what I may consider a proj)er notice of the whole of it, 
 and all its parts. And here, sir, is that extraordinary ebulli- 
 tion, called by the honorable senator "the speech of Mr. C.J. 
 Ingersoll in the House of Representatives." 
 
 Air. President, I almost wish I could find myself out of order 
 in referring to it, as I imagine I should be if it had not been that 
 the honorable member has made it his own and a part of his 
 speech, I should be very glad to be compelled not to take any 
 notice of it — to be told that I was not at liberty to know that 
 such a speech was ever made ; and should thank God to know 
 that such an ebullition had never been made out of a bar-room 
 any where — and that's a theater quite too high for it. Now, 
 sir, a large portion of this "speech" seems to be directed against 
 the individual now addressing the Senate. I will read its parts 
 and parcels, and take such notice of them as they deserve as I 
 go along. Hear what the New York member says : 
 
 " Mr. Dickinson had understood J,hcre was a correspondence between the au- 
 thorities at Washington and the Governor of New York to that efibct; but he par- 
 ticularly alluded to a letter addressed by Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. 
 Crittenden, Attorney-general at that time, directing him to proceed to New York 
 and take charge of the trial of M'Leod. He had it not then before him, and did 
 not recollect its precise language, but would refer to it before he should close. 
 He would endeavor to speak of the history of the past truly, and in perfect kind- 
 ness, but he wished to show what we had gained by negotiations with Great 
 Britain, and who had made the concessions." 
 
 Now, sir, either by way of giving interest to this narrative, 
 or something else, the gentleman from New York makes this a 
 little more distinct. He says not only that Mr. Webster wrote 
 this letter to the Governor of New York with his own hand, 
 but that he sent it by express. I believe the " express" matter 
 was expressly by the gentleman from New York. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. Will you allow me? 
 
 Mr. Webster. Oh ! yes, I will allow you. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. The gentleman from New York is not at all 
 responsible for the statement in the note. Nor does the gen- 
 tleman from New York make the extracts from Mr. Ingersoll's 
 speech any part of his ; on the contrary, I stated expressly, at 
 the time, that I alluded to it as a very extraordinary statement. 
 Having met with the emphatic contradiction of the honorable 
 senator from Massachusetts, or what implied contradiction, I 
 proposed to read in justification the remarks of Mr. Ingersoll. 
 The friends of the senator in his immediate vicinity objected to 
 have it read. I did not read the extract, nor was it in the re- 
 port of my speech, which, in the usual way, found its way to 
 the newspapers. But, as I had repeated calls for what I had 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 283 
 
 alluded to as spoken by Mr. Ingersoll, I did append, in the 
 pamphlet edition of my speech, those remarks. I gave them as 
 they were found in the newspaper, and therefore the senator 
 from New York neither added to nor diminished these remarks. 
 I wish to set the senator right as to this single matter of fact. 
 
 Mr. Webster. I have only to state the fact that the additional 
 falsehood in the speech of Mr. Ingersoll, as published by the 
 member from New York, is not to be found in the published 
 report. 
 
 Mr, Dickinson. In what paper ? 
 
 Mr. Webster. In the National Intelligencer, as corrected by 
 Mr. Ingersoll himself; and so it would appear that if not in- 
 serted by the member from New York, there is one falsehood 
 in the case w^hich the original author was not so graceless as to 
 retain. But I go on w^ith this speech : 
 
 " Out of this controversy <irose the arrest of Alexander M'Leod. What he in- 
 tended to state now consisted of facts not yet generally known, but which would 
 soon be made known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had re- 
 ceived them in confidence from the best authority. When M'Leod was arrest- 
 ed, General Harrison had just died, and Mr. Tyler was not yet at home as his 
 successor. Mr. Webster, who was de facto the administration — Mr. Webster 
 wrote to the Governor of New York, with his own hand, a letter, and sent it by 
 express, marked ' private,' in which the governor was told that he must release 
 M'Leod, or see the magnificent commercial emporium laid in ashes. The brill- 
 iant description given by the gentleman from Virginia of the prospective destruc- 
 tion of that city in the case of a war was,, in a measure, anticipated on this occa- 
 sion. M'Leod must be released, said the Secretary of State, or New York must 
 be laid in ashes. The governor asked when this would be done. The reply 
 was.fortkicifh. Do you not see coming on the waves of the sea the Paixhan 
 guns? and if M'Leod be not released, New York will be destroyed. But, said 
 the governor, the power of pardon is vested in me, and even if he be convicted, 
 he may be pardoned. Oh, no, said the secretary ; if you even try him, you will 
 bring destruction on yourselves." 
 
 Well, now, sir, I say that a series of more direct, unalloyed 
 falsehoods — absolute, unqualified, entire — never appeared in 
 any publication in Christendom. Every allegation here made 
 — every one, would entirely justify the use of that expressive 
 monosyllable, which some people are base enough and low 
 enough to deserve to have thrown in their teeth, but which a 
 gentleman does not often like to utter. Every one of them, 
 from beginning to end, is false. There is not a particle of truth 
 in them ; there is not the slightest foundation for any one of 
 these assertions. "Mr. Webster wrote a private letter," say- 
 ing that the " commercial emporium would be laid in ashes !" 
 "Paixhan guns !" False, sir! all false! I never said or wrote 
 such a thing in my life to the Governor of the State of New 
 York. " M'Leod must be released." It is false ! I never 
 said any such thing. " New York must be laid in ashes." It 
 is false ! I said or wrote no such thing. " The governor asked 
 when this was to be done." What does this mean? Why, it 
 implies that the Governor of New York wrote to me a letter. 
 
284 DIl'LOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TATERS. 
 
 in answer to mine, inquiring when New York was to be " laid 
 in ashes," and the reply was, " forthwith." And here we have 
 this — Mr. Ingersoll himself preparing this speech for the press, 
 italicizing the word forlhiaith, as if 1 had written another letter 
 to the Governor of New York, "telling him" that New York 
 was to be laid in ashes '' forthwilh." " But, said the governor, 
 the power of pardon is vested in me, and if he be convicted, he 
 may be pardoned." Here is another letter — a third letter to 
 me ! " Oh, no, said the secretary" — why, here I am writing a 
 fourth letter ! — " if you even try him, you will bring destruction 
 upon yourselves." This is stated by a man, or a tiling ! that 
 has a seat in one of the houses of Congress. I promised to 
 keep niy temper, and I will. The whole concern is infinitely 
 contemptible, and can not disturb the temper of a reasonable 
 man. But I will expose it, and let the country see it. Such, 
 then, are the contents of the letters which this person describes 
 as " facts not generally known, but which would soon be made 
 known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had 
 received them in confidence from the best authority." Well, I 
 do not know where he got his "authority," unless, as suggested 
 by a friend near me, it was from some chapters of his own re- 
 cent work! But let me state what did occur, and prepare the 
 minds of the Senate for some degree of astonishment, that any 
 man in the world could tell such a story as this. 
 
 When M'Leod was arrested, there was a good deal of con- 
 versation in Washington and elsewhere about what would 
 happen. It was a subject of very considerable interest, and 
 certainly of embarrassment to the government. It was hoped 
 and expected by me, and I believe by the President and other 
 gentlemen, that the Governor of New York w^ould see that it 
 was a case in which, if he were invested with authority by the 
 Constitution and the laws of the state, he would recommend 
 the entering of a nolle prosequi by the prosecuting officer of 
 the State of New York. It was expected that he would do that, 
 and General Harrison one day said to me that he had received 
 a letter from a friend, in which he was informed that the Gov- 
 ernor of New York had made up his mind to take that course, 
 and that he was very glad of it, as it relieved this government. 
 It was about the time that the attorney-general was to proceed 
 to New York to see how the matter stood, or perhaps a day or 
 two after he had left. The case was to be tried immediately, 
 within ten days, at Lockport, in the western part of the State 
 of New York. Having heard this, however. General Harrison 
 directed me to write a note of thanks to the Governor of New 
 York, stating that he thought he had done exactly what was 
 proper, and by so doing had relieved the government from 
 some embarrassment, and the country from so.me danger of 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 285 
 
 collision with a foreign power. And that is every thing said 
 in that letter, or any other letter written by me to the Governor 
 of the State of New York, marked private. The letter is here, 
 if any one wishes to see it, or to hear it read. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden here suggested that the letter should be read. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Very well. Here it is : I will read it. 
 
 (Private.) Department of State, Washington, March 17, 1841. 
 
 My dkar Sir, — The President has learned, not directly, but by means of a let- 
 ter from a friend, that you had expressed a disposition to direct a nolle prosequi 
 in the case of the indictment against M'Leod, on being informed by this govern- 
 ment that the British government has officially avowed the attack on the Caroline 
 as an act done by its ovvn authority. The President directs me to express his 
 thanks for the promptitude with which you appear disposed to perform an act 
 which he supposes proper for the occasion, and which is calculated to relieve this 
 government from embarrassment, and the country from some danger of collision 
 with a foreign power. 
 
 You will have seen Mr. Crittenden, whom I take this occasion to commend to 
 your kindest regard. 
 
 I have the honor to be, yours truly, Daniel Webster. 
 
 His Excellency Wm. II. Seward, Governor of New York. 
 
 Mr. MangLim. Was that the only letter written 1 
 Mr. Webster. Yes, the only letter — the only private letter 
 ever written by me to the Governor of New York in the world. 
 Now, how am I to treat such allegations ? It is the falsehood 
 "with circumstance." A general statement might pass unre- 
 garded ; but here he quotes what he calls " the highest au- 
 thority." He states particulars. He gives all possible plausi- 
 ble marks of credit to the falsehood. How am I to treat it? 
 Why, sir, I pronounce it an utter, an absolute falsehood, in all 
 its parts, from beginning to end. Now, I do not wish to use 
 epithets, nor to call names ; but I hold up this picture, which I 
 have painted faintly, but truly — I hold it up to every man in 
 the Senate and in the country, and I ask him to look at it, and 
 then write at the bottom of it any thing which he thinks it most 
 resembles. 
 
 The speech proceeds : " The next step taken by the admin- 
 istration was to appoint a district attorney, who was to be 
 charged with the defense of Alexander M'Leod — the gentle- 
 man who was lately removed from office — and a fee of five 
 thousand dollars was put into his hands for this purpose." 
 False, sir ! false, every way ! The government of the United 
 States had no more to do with the employment of Mr. Spencer 
 for the defense of M'Leod than had the government of France. 
 Here [taking up the corrected report of Mr. I.'s speech in the 
 Intelligencer] — here he says that, " enlightened by the gentle- 
 man from New York, he found he was mistaken on this point." 
 " Mistaken !" No more mistaken than he was in any of his 
 other allegations. "Mistaken!" No man who makes such 
 statements is entitled to shelter himself under any notion of 
 mistake. His declaration in this particular is no more false, 
 
286 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 nor any less false, than is the declaration that the government 
 of the United States appointed an attorney, or charged their 
 attorney with the defense of M'Leod. They never interfered 
 in the slightest degree. It is true, they furnished to Mr. Spen- 
 cer, as they would have furnished to any other counsel, the 
 official correspondence, to prove that the government of Great 
 Britain avowed the act of the destruction of the Caroline as 
 their own. ''Application was afterward made to the chief 
 justice of the State of New York for the release of M'Leod. 
 The judge did not think proper to grant the application. The 
 marshal was about to let him go, when he was told that he 
 must do it at his peril ; and that if M'Leod went out of prison, 
 he should go in." I do not know what the marshal had to do 
 with the case. M'Leod was in prison under the authority of 
 the State of New York. I do not know how it was possible 
 that the marshal, an officer of the United States, could interfere. 
 But there are some other matters in the speech to which I 
 must refer. " He would call on the honorable member from 
 Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) to sustain him in what he was 
 about to say." I do not find that the honorable member from 
 Massachusetts has yet sustained him in these statements, and I 
 rather think he never will. He asserts that I wrote to the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House on that subject, 
 asking an outfit and a salary for a special minister to England 
 to settle the Oregon Question. It is a falsehood, as I believe. 
 I never wrote such a letter, to the best of my recollection. 
 " These are facts," he says, " which no one will dispute." I 
 dispute them ! I say I have no recollection of them at all. I do 
 not believe Mr. Adams has any recollection of any such note 
 being written by me. If I had written such a note, I think I 
 should have remembered it. Well, now, this person next pro- 
 ceeds to a topic no way connected with what he had been dis- 
 cussing. [Here Mr. Webster read an extract from the speech 
 of Mr. Ingersoll, charging him (Mr. Webster) with offering to 
 give Oregon for free trade with England, in a speech made at 
 a public dinner in Baltimore, May, 1843.] Here by me sits a 
 senator from Maryland (Mr. Johnson) who was present at that 
 dinner, and heard that speech, and if I wanted a witness be- 
 yond my own statement and printed speech, I could readily call 
 upon him. In that speech I did not mention Oregon, nor allude 
 to Oregon in the remotest degree. It is an utter falsehood ! 
 There can be no mistake about it. The author of this speech 
 (Mr. Ingersoll) was not there. If he knew any thing about it, 
 he must have acquired his knowledge from the printed speech; 
 but in that there was not the slightest reference to Oregon : 
 this is another statement, therefore, just as false as all the rest. 
 Why, sir, hydrostatic pressure has no means of condensing any 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 287 
 
 thing into such a narrow compass as the author of this speech 
 condenses falsehood. All steam power does not equal it. 
 What does he say here ? Why, that my speech at Baltimore 
 contained a strong recommendation of a commercial treaty 
 with England. Why, sir, a commercial treaty with England 
 to regulate the subjects upon which I was talking at Baltimore 
 — the duties laid on goods by the two countries — was just the 
 thing that 1 did not recommend, and which I there declared 
 the treaty-making power had no right to make — no authority 
 to make. He would represent me as holding out the idea that 
 the power of laying duties for revenue was a power that could 
 be freely exercised by the President and Senate, as part of the 
 treaty-making power ! Why, I hope that I know more of the 
 Constitution than that. The ground I took was just the re- 
 verse of that — exactly the reverse. Sir, my correspondence, 
 public and private, with England, at that time led me to antici- 
 pate, before long, some change in the policy of England with 
 respect to certain articles, the produce of this country — some 
 change with respect to the policy of the corn laws. And I 
 suggested in that speech how very important it would be, if 
 things should so turn out, as that that great product of ours, the 
 Indian corn, of which we raised five times as much as we do 
 of wheat — principally the product of the West and Southwest, 
 especially of the State of Tennessee, which raised annually I 
 do not know how many millions — I suggested, I say, the great 
 good fortune that would happen if an arrangement could be 
 made by which that article of human food could be freely im- 
 ported into England. And I said that, in the spirit that pre- 
 vailed, and which I knew prevailed — I knew that the topic had 
 been discussed in England — if an arrangement could be made 
 in some proper manner to produce such a result, it would be a 
 piece of great good fortune. But, then, did I not immediately 
 proceed to say that that could not be done by treaty? I used 
 the word "arrangement" — studiously used it — to avoid the 
 conclusion that it could be done by treaty. I will read what I 
 said : 
 
 " But with regard to the direct intercourse between us and England, great in- 
 terest is excited, many wishes expressed, and strong opinions entertained, in fa- 
 vor of an attempt to settle duties on certain articles by treaty or arrangement. I 
 say, gentlemen, by ' arrangement,' and I use that term by design. The Consti- 
 tution of the United States leaves with Congress the great business of laying du- 
 ties to support the government. It has made it the duty of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, the popular branch of the government, to take the lead on such sub- 
 jects. There have been some few cases in which treaties have been entered 
 into, having the effect to limit duties ; but it is not necessary — and that is an im- 
 portant part of the whole subject — it is not necessary to go upon the idea that 
 if we come to an understanding with foreign governments upon rates of duties, 
 that understanding can be effected only by means of a treaty ratified by the Pres- 
 ident and two thirds of the Senate, according to the form of the Constitution. 
 
288 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 " It is tnio a treaty is the law of the land. But, then, as the whole business of 
 revenue and general provision for all the wants of the country is undoubtedly a 
 very peculiar business of the House of Representatives or of Congress, I am of 
 opinion, and always have been, that there should be no encroachment upon that 
 power by the exercise of the treaty-making power, unless in case of great and 
 CNddeut necessity." 
 
 There have been some cases of necessity, like that of France 
 in the case of Louisiana. And yet he says that in this speech, 
 in which Oregon was not mentioned at all, in which I repudia- 
 ted altogether the levying of revenue by the treaty-making 
 power, that I recommended a treaty with England in this very 
 speech for the purpose of laying duties. Sir, I grow weary — 
 weary with this tissue of falsehoods. Why should I allude to 
 representations and imputations so groundless? And yet, sir, 
 there is one thing in the speech from which I will supplicate 
 its author to have me excused. He says he never agreed with 
 me in politics. That is true. We never did, and I think we 
 never shall agree. lie said, many years ago, that if he had 
 lived in the time of the Revolution, he should have been a Tory. 
 I do not think I should. He has said, also, very recently, in a 
 printed book of his, that the Declaration of Independence was 
 carried with great difficulty, if not by accident. That is his 
 estimate of the great charter of our national existence. We 
 should never agree in politics, I admit. But he said, " Mr. 
 Webster is a man of talents." Here I beg to be excused. I 
 can bear his abuse, but if he undertakes my commendation, I 
 begin to tremble for my reputation. 
 
 Sir, it would be natural to ask, what can account for all this 
 apparent malice? Sir, I am not certain there is any malice in 
 it. I think it proceeds rather from a moral obtuseness, a native 
 want of discrimination between truth and falsehood ; or that, if 
 there ever was a glimmering perception of that kind, a long dis- 
 cipline in that sublime school of morality, which teaches that 
 "all's fair in politics," appears to have completely obscured it. 
 
 Hear him further on the dismemberment of Massachusetts : 
 "By this treaty," he said, "the good old Bay State, which he 
 loved with filial reverence, was disintegrated — torn asunder." 
 "Massachusetts torn asunder !" Sir, Massachusetts owned one 
 half of certain wild lands in Maine. By the Treaty of Wash- 
 ington, she parted with these lands, at their just value, and by 
 this she is represented as disintegrating herself — tearing herself 
 asunder! Can absurdity go further? But the best, or the 
 worst, of all is, that the author of this speech loves the old Bay 
 State with filial reverence! iie love Massachusetts ! He! he 
 love the Bay State ! If he loves Massachusetts, he is like the 
 luckless swain who 
 
 " Grieves for friendship unretumed, 
 Or unregarded love." 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 289 
 
 I can tell him, sir, that Massachusetts and all her people, of 
 all classes, hold him, and his love, and his veneration, and his 
 speeches, and his principles, and his standard of truth, and his 
 value of truth, in utter — what shall I say? — any thing but re- 
 spect. 
 
 Sir, this person's mind is so grotesque, so bizarre — it is rather 
 the caricature of a mind than a mind. When we see a man of 
 some knowledge and some talent, who is yet incapable of pro- 
 ducing any thing true or useful, we sometimes apply to him a 
 phrase borrowed from the mechanics — we say there is a screw 
 loose somewhere. In this case, the screws are loose all over. 
 The whole machine is out of order, disjointed, rickety, crazy, 
 creaking, as often upside down as upside up ; as often hurting 
 as helping those who use it, and generally incapable of any 
 thing but bungling and mischief 
 
 Mr. President, I will now take some further notice of what 
 has been said by the member from New York (Mr. Dickinson)^ 
 I exceedingly regret — truly and unfeignedly regret — that the 
 observations of the gentleman make it my duty to take some 
 notice of them. Our acquaintance is but short, but it has not 
 been unpleasant. I always thought him a man of courteous 
 manners and kind feelings, but it can not be expected I shall 
 sit here and listen to statements such as the honorable member 
 has made on this question, and not answer them. I repeat, it 
 gives me great pain to take notice of the gentleman's speech. 
 This controversy is not mine ; all can bear witness to that. I 
 have not undertaken to advance, of my own accord, a single 
 word about the Treaty of Washington. I am forced — driven 
 to it ; and, sir, when I am driven to the wall, I mean to stand 
 up and make battle, even against the most formidable odds. 
 What I find fault with is, that throughout his speech, the honor- 
 able member continually makes the remark that he is true to the 
 history of the past; he wishes to tell the truth, that he is mak- 
 ing a search after truth, and yet makes, in fact, so much mis- 
 statement. If this be a specimen of the honorable senator's re- 
 searches after truth, a collection of his researches would be a 
 very amusing compilation. If the honorable member, during 
 the relaxation from his duties here, would put his researches to- 
 gether, I undertake to say they would sell well. The Harpers 
 would make half a fortune out of them. The people of the 
 United States will pay well for what gives them a good, hearty 
 laugh; and it is no matter, if that effect be produced, whether 
 it be by a story by Dickens, by a caricature from Punch, or a 
 volume of "researches after truth" by an honorable member 
 from New York. 
 
 Now, sir, I propose to follow the honorable member a few 
 steps in the course of his researches. I have already said that 
 
 T 
 
290 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 in two or three passages of his 'speech the gentleman expresses 
 his strong desire to state the facts. [Here Mr. Webster read 
 a quotation from the speech of Mr. Dickinson.] He says there 
 are four things we have lost by the Treaty of Washington. I 
 do not readily find the passages, but the amount is, that we 
 made a very important concession of territory to England under 
 that treaty. Now, that treaty proposed to be a treaty of con- 
 cession on both sides. The gentleman states concessions made 
 by the United States, but entirely forgets, "in his researches 
 after truth," to state those made on the other side. He takes 
 no notice of the cession of Rouse's Point ; or of a strip of land 
 a hundred miles long, on the border of the State of New York. 
 His notion of historical truth is, to state all on one side of the 
 story, and forget all the rest. That is a system of research aft- 
 er truth which will hardly commend itself to the respect of 
 most men. But, sir, what I wish principally to do now, is to 
 turn to another part of this speech. I before gave the gentle- 
 man notice that I would call upon him for the authority upon 
 •which he made such a statement, as that an attempt was made 
 at Washington by members of the government to stop the 
 course of justice ; and now, if the gentleman is ready with the 
 proofs, I would be glad to have them. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. I will reserve what I have to say until the 
 gentleman has done, when I shall produce it to his satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. Webster. I undertake to say, no authority will be pro- 
 duced, or is producible, that there were attempts made at Wash- 
 ington to interfere with the trial of M'Leod. What occurred? 
 It was suggested by the President to Governor Seward, that the 
 President was gratified that he had come to the conclusion to 
 enter a nolle prosequi in the case of M'Leod. Was that a pal- 
 pable interference with judicial authority? Was that a resist- 
 ance of the ordinary process of law? The government of the 
 United States had nothing at all to do with the trial of M'Leod 
 in the New York courts, except to see that he was furnished 
 with the proof of facts necessary to show his defense. But I 
 wish to know in what school the gentleman has been taught 
 that if a man is in prison, and his counsel moves to have him 
 brought up on the great writ of habeas corpus, that that is any 
 resistance of judicial process in favor of the prisoner? I dare 
 say the honorable gentleman, among his authorities, can pro- 
 duce none to show such to be an interference. He may call 
 what he likes a direct and palpable interference. He may ap- 
 ply the term to the journey of the attorney-general to Albany, 
 or to any other act or occurrence. But that does not prove it 
 so. I hold the gentleman responsible to prove that the govern- 
 ment did some act, or acts, which the common sense of men 
 holds to be a palpable and direct interference. I say there was 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 291 
 
 none. He quotes the letter ortbstructions to the attorney-gen- 
 eral. That proposes no interference. That letter says to the 
 attorney-general, that if the case were pending in the courts of 
 the United Stales, so that the President could have control over 
 it, he would direct the prosecuting officer to enter a nolle pros- 
 equi; but as it belonged entirely to the Governor of New York, 
 it is referred to the governor himself. That is the substance, 
 in this respect, of the letter which the attorney-general carried 
 to the Governor of New York, and there was not another act 
 done by authority at Washington in reference to this matter, 
 and I call upon the gentleman at his leisure to produce his au- 
 thority for his statements. One word more in answer to the 
 remarks the gentleman made this morning, and I shall leave 
 him. The ebullition which I have been commenting upon, and 
 which is as black and foul-mouthed as ever was ejected from 
 any thing standing on two legs, was published a few days be- 
 fore the honorable member from New York made his speech. 
 He referred to it, and stated a fact contained in it. 
 
 I was here in my seat, and heard it, and I rose and told the 
 honorable member it was an utter falsehood. He knew I de- 
 nounced it as an absolute calumny. He saw on the face of 
 that statement that, if it was true, it was utterly disgraceful to 
 me. It was, he said, disgraceful to the country, what was 
 done ; and if it was disgraceful to the country, it must be so to 
 me. I stated my denial of the truth of that speech of Mr. In- 
 gersoU in the strongest terms — in the most emphatic language. 
 What then? The very next day he proceeded to read that 
 speech in the Senate ; but it was objected to, and was not read. 
 But afterward, as he tells us, he sent his own speech to press, 
 and inserted this speech of Ingersoll, knowing that I had pro- 
 nounced it a falsehood. Yes, miserable, calumnious, and scan- 
 dalous as it was, he snatched at it eagerly, and put it in his own 
 speech, and then circulated it to the full extent of his ability. 
 I happened to come into this chamber one day when the Senate 
 was not in session, and found our agents and messengers frank- 
 ing and directing that speech to all parts of New York ; and I 
 do not doubt that enough of it was sent by him into Broome 
 county, and the adjacent counties, to fill a small barn ; and 
 pretty bad fodder it would be. And now I beg to know if that 
 is friendly, candid, or just? Does any man think he can stand 
 up here with the proper dignity of a senator of the United 
 States, and pursue such a course 1 He knew the speech he 
 quoted was calumnious He heard it pronounced utterly false. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. Onl / one single point in it was answered or 
 denied by the senator. That was, that the fee of the attorney- 
 general was not paid by the government of the United States. 
 I referred to the statements because I had a r'ght to do it, and 
 thinking it was part of my duty. 
 
292 DirLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Mr. Webster. I do not say w^at a man has a right to do — 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. As a matter of propriety, then — 
 
 Mr. Webster. Well, I say it was not proper to do it. Sup- 
 pose I had dragged out of a ditch some calumny on the gentle- 
 man which he denied, would it be proper in me to persist in it 
 after that denial ? 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. The speech quoted was documentary matter, 
 and I had a rigiit and full liberty to lay such before the country. 
 
 Mr. Webster. That is true of documentary history, but when 
 did that speech become documentary history? 
 
 Mr. Dickinson. It was considered so by me, because it was 
 printed, and went to the public from an otficial source. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Indeed! So any falsehood, any vile calumny, 
 that is raked up, no matter what it is, if printed, is "document- 
 ary history !" The gentleman's own speech, according to that, 
 is already documentary history ! Now, sir, I repeat again, that 
 it has given me pain to be driven into this controversy — great 
 pain ; but I repeat, also, that if I am attacked here for any thing 
 done in the course of my public life, I shall defend myself. My 
 public reputation, be it what it may, has been earned by thirty 
 years' service in these halls. It is dearer to me than life itself, 
 and till life is extinct I will defend it. 
 
 I will now allude, Mr. President, as briefly as possible, to 
 some other provisions of the Treaty of Washington. The ar- 
 ticle for the delivery of fugitives from justice has been assailed. 
 It has been said that an innocent woman had been sent back 
 to Scotland under its provisions. Why, I believe the fact is, 
 that a woman had murdered her husband, or some relative in 
 Scotland, and fled to this country. She was pursued, demand- 
 ed, and carried back, and from some defect in the ordinary 
 regularity of evidence, or some such cause, which not unfre- 
 quently occurs in criminal trials, she was acquitted. But, sir, 
 I undertake to say, that the article for the extradition of offend- 
 ers, contained in the treaty of 1842, if there were nothing else 
 in the treaty of any importance, has of itself been of more value 
 to this country, and is of more value to the progress of civiliza- 
 tion, the cause of humanity, and the good understanding be- 
 tween nations, than could be readily computed. What was 
 the state and condition of this country, sir, on the borders and 
 frontiers, at the time of this treaty I Why, it was the time 
 when the "patriot societies" or "Hunters' Lodges" were all in 
 operation — when companies were formed and officers appoint- 
 ed by secret associations, to carry on the war in Canada ; and, 
 as I have said already, the disturbances were so frequent and 
 so threatening, that the United States government dispatched 
 General Scott to the frontier to make a draught on New York 
 lor militia in order to preserve the peace of the border. And 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 293 
 
 now, sir, what was it that repressed these disorders, and re- 
 stored the peace of ti^e border? Noth.ng sir nothing bu a 
 provision between the two governments, tha if those "patnot 
 and "barn-burners" went from one side to the other to destioy 
 their neighbors' property, trying to bring on a war all he time 
 -for that was their object-they should be delivered up to be 
 punished. As soon as that provision was agreed to, the dis- 
 S)ances ceased, on one side and on the other ^ they were heaid 
 of no more. In the formation of this clause of the treaty I had 
 the advantage of consultation with a venerable ^nend near me 
 one of the members from Michigan [Mr. Woodbridge]. He 
 pressed me not to forego the opportunity ot introducing some 
 Lh provision. He examined it; and I will ask him if he 
 knows any other cause for the instantaneous suppression ot 
 these border ditBculties than this treaty provision ? 
 Mr. Woodbridge rose, and said, in reply, as follows: 
 Mr. President, I may not disregard the reference which the 
 centleman has done me *hc honor to make to me m regard to 
 ^he inconsiderable part which I deemed it my duty to take in 
 the matter alluded to. A brief statement ^f.^ome facts which 
 occurred, and a glance, simply, at the condition of that border 
 country n-om whtch I come, will be all that the occasion seems 
 
 '"^ That'part of Canada with which the people of Michigan are 
 brought more immediately in contact extends from the head 
 of Lake Erie to Point Edwards, at the lower extremity of Lake 
 Theron, a distance of about 100 miles. Along this mtermediate 
 
 ]isranc; the Straits of Detroit -^.^f, S-^'^VorXl; eX^ 
 imaginable facility for the escape of fugitives. For then entire 
 lenglh, the shores of those straits, on either side, exhibit lines 
 of dense and continuous settlement. Their shores are linedj 
 and their smooth surface covered with boats and vessels of all 
 dimensions and descriptions, from the bark canoe to the steamer 
 of a thousand tons. If the perpetrator of crime can i each a 
 bark canoe or a light skiff, and detach himself ^om ^he hoie 
 he may in a few minutes defy pursuit, for he will be within a 
 foreign jurisdiction. In such a condition of things, no society 
 can be tafe unless there be some power to re<^l^^^"\J"g^^*7; 
 from justice. While your colonial government existed heie, 
 and its executive administration, under the contivjl ot his na- 
 "ona government, was in the hands of my honorable colleague 
 a conventional arrangement -informal, undoubted yn its 
 character-was entered into by him with the authorities of Can- 
 ada sustained by local legislation on both sides, by which hese 
 evils were greatly lessened. When the present state govern- 
 ment took the place of the territorial governmen this arrang^ 
 ment of necessity ceased; and then the evils alluded to weie 
 
294 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 greatly aggravated, and became eminently dangerous. Shortly 
 before the first session of Congress, at which I attended, after 
 the inauguration of General Harrison, a very aggravated case 
 of crime occurred, and its perpetrators, as usual, escaped into 
 Canada. It was made the subject of an olFicial communication 
 to the State Legislature: and soon after my arrival here, I 
 deemed it to be my duty to lay the matter before the Secretary 
 of State, with a view to the adoption of some appropriate con- 
 vention with Great Britain. 
 
 The honorable senator — then Secretary of State — was 
 pleased to receive the suggestion favorably, but suggested to 
 me the expediency of obtaining, if practicable, the sense of the 
 Senate on the subject. Accordingly, I afterward introduced a 
 resolution here, having that object in view, and it was referred 
 to the consideration of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
 of which an honorable senator from Virginia, not now a mem- 
 ber of the Senate, was chairman. 
 
 Mr. Rives expressed himself very decidedly in favor of the 
 proposition. But, negotiations having been begun, or being 
 about to commence, with Lord Ashburton, it was not deemed 
 expedient, I believe, that it should then be made matter of dis- 
 cussion in the Senate. I had not ceased to feel very earnest 
 solicitude on the subject ; and, as the negotiation approached 
 its termination, Mr. Webster did me the honor to send me the 
 project of that article of the treaty which relates to the subject. 
 He desired me to consider it, and to exhibit it, confidentially 
 perhaps, to such senators as came from border states, for their 
 consideration, and for such modification of its terms and scope 
 as they might deem expedient. This I did. The form and 
 scope of the article met, I believe, with the approbation of all 
 to whom I showed it. Nor was any modification suggested, 
 except, perhaps, one very immaterial one, suggested by an hon- 
 orable senator from New York. Of all this I advised Mr. 
 Webster, and the project became afterward an article of the 
 treaty, with but little, if any variation. I believe I can throw 
 no more light on the subject, sir. But the honorable senator, 
 having intimated to me that, in his discussion of the subject, he 
 might, perhaps, have occasion to refer to the part I took in the 
 matter, I have provided myself with the copy of the message to 
 the Legislature of Michigan, of which I had in the beginning 
 made use, and which, in order to show the extent of the evil 
 referred to, and the necessity which existed for some treaty 
 stipulation on the subject, I ask the secretary to read.* (The 
 
 * The secretary here read an extract from Mr. Woodbridge, when Governor of 
 Michigan, to the Legislature of that state, calling its attention earnestly to the fa- 
 cilities which exist along the interior boundaries of the United States for the es- 
 cape of fugitives from justice ; and saying, that a very recent occurrence, of the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 296 
 
 extract having been read, Mr. Woodbridge then proceeded) : I 
 have now only to add my entire and unqualified conviction, 
 that no act of the legislative or treaty-making power that I 
 have ever known, has ever been more successful in its opera- 
 tion than this article of the treaty ; nor could any provision 
 iiave been attended by more happy consequences upon the 
 peace and safety of society in that remote frontier. 
 
 Mr. Webster resumed. I am happy to find that, in its opera- 
 tion, the provision has satisfied those who felt an interest in its 
 adoption. But 1 may now state, I suppose without offense and 
 without cavil, that since the negotiation of this treaty, contain- 
 ing this article, we have negotiated treaties with other govern- 
 ments of Europe containing similar provisions, and that between 
 other governments of Europe themselves, treaties have been 
 negotiated containing that provision : a provision never before 
 known to have existed in any of the treaties between European 
 nations, I am happy to see, therefore, that it has proved itself 
 to be useful to the citizens of the United States, for whose 
 benefit it was devised and adopted ; that it has proved itself 
 worthy of favor and imitation in the judgment of the most en- 
 lightened nations of Europe ; and that it has never been com- 
 plained of by any body, except by murderers, and fugitives, and 
 felons themselves. 
 
 Now, sir, comes the matter of the African squadron, to which 
 I am induced to turn my attention for a moment, out of sincere 
 respect to the member from Arkansas [Mr. Sevier], who sug- 
 gested the other day that to that article he had objection. 
 There is no man whose opinions are more independent than 
 those of that gentleman, and no one maintains them with more 
 candor. But, if I understood him, he appears to think that that 
 article gave up the right of search. What does he mean ? We 
 never claimed that right. We had no such right to give up ; or 
 does it mean exactly the opposite of what he says, that it yield- 
 ed to England her claim of such right ? No such thing. The 
 arrangement made by this treaty was designed to carry into 
 effect those stipulations in the Treaty of Ghent which we 
 thought binding on us, as well as to effect an object important 
 to this country, to the interests of humanity, and to the general 
 cause of civilization throughout the world, without raising the 
 difficulty of the right of search. The object of it was to ac- 
 complish all that in a way that should avoid the possibility of 
 subjecting our vessels, under any pretense, to the right of 
 search. I will not dwell on this. But allow me to state the 
 
 most painful and atrocious character, had compelled his own attention to it, and 
 recoinmeniiing, in strong terms, that the peculiar situation of Michigan, in this re- 
 epect, should be laid before Congress, with a view of urging the expediency of 
 Bome negotiation on the subject between the United States and England. 
 
296 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL TAPEIiS. 
 
 sentiments on this subject of persons in the service of the Unit- 
 ed States abroad, whose opinions are entitled to respect. 
 There is a letter sent to the Department of State by Mr. Whea- 
 ton, dated Berlin, November 15th, 1842. [Mr. Webster read 
 from this letter an extract expressive of the writer's approbation 
 of this article of the treaty as particularly well adapted to the 
 end proposed, and by which, for the first time, the policy of the 
 United States in this respect might be said to have exercised 
 a decided influence upon that of Europe. Vide Appendix.] 
 
 I am quite willing (said Mr. Webster) to rest on this opinion 
 of Mr. Wheaton as to the propriety and safety, the security and 
 the wisdom of the article in this treaty respecting the suppres- 
 sion of the African slave trade by a squadron of our own, 
 against any little artillery that may be used against it here. I 
 beg the gentleman's pardon, I did not allude to his opinion; I 
 have for him the highest respect. I was thinking of what is 
 said in some of these " documents." But I need not stop here. 
 Upon the appearance of this treaty between the United States 
 and England, the leading states of Europe did, in fact, alter 
 their whole policy on this subject. The treaty of 1841 between 
 the Five Powers had not been ratified by France. There was 
 so much opposition to it in France, on the ground that it gave 
 the right of search to the English cruisers, that the king and 
 M. Guizot, though the treaty was negotiated according to their 
 instructions, did not choose to ratify it. I have stated the cause 
 of popular indignation against it. Well, what was done ? I'll 
 tell you. When this Treaty of Washington became known in 
 Europe, the wise men of the two countries, who wished to do 
 all they could to suppress the African slave trade, and to do it 
 in a manner securing in the highest degree the immunity of the 
 flag of either, and the supremacy of neither, agreed to abandon 
 the quintuple treaty of 1841 — the unratified treaty : they gave 
 it up. 
 
 They adopted the Treaty of Washington as their model ; 
 and I have now in my hand the Convention between France 
 and England, signed in London on the 29th of May, 1845, the 
 articles of which, in respect to the manner of putting an end to 
 the slave trade, embody exactly the provisions contained in the 
 Treaty of Washington. Thus it is seen that France has bor- 
 rowed, from the treaty stipulations between the United States 
 and England, the mode of fulfilling her own duties and accom- 
 plishing her own purpose, in perfect accordance with the im- 
 munity of her flag. I need hardly say, sir, that France is the 
 nation which was earliest, and has been most constantly wake- 
 ful, in her jealousy of the supremacy of the maritime power of 
 England. She has kept her eye on it, steadily, for centuries. 
 The immunity of flags is a deep principle — it is a sentiment — 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 297 
 
 one may almost say it is a passion, with all the people of 
 France ; and France, jealous, quick of perception, thoroughly 
 hostile to any extension of the right of maritime search or visit, 
 under any pretenses whatever, has seen, in the example of the 
 Treaty of Washington, a mode of fulfilling her duties, for the 
 suppression of the African slave trade, without disturbing the 
 most sensitive of all her fears. 
 
 Allow me, sir, to read the 8th and 9th articles of the Treaty 
 of Washington, and the 1st, 2d, and 3d articles of the Conven- 
 tion between England and France. [Mr. Webster read these 
 articles. Vide Appendix.] 
 
 Mr. President, there is another topic on which I have to say 
 a few words. It has been said that the Treaty of Washington, 
 and the negotiations accompanying it, leave the great and in- 
 teresting question of impressment where they found it. With 
 all humility and modesty, I must beg to express my dissent 
 from that opinion. I must be permitted to say, that the cor- 
 respondence connected with the negotiation of that treaty, al- 
 though impressment was not in the treaty itself, has, in the judg- 
 ment of the world, or at least of considerable and respectable 
 persons in the world, been regarded as not having left the ques- 
 tion of impressment where it found it, but as having advanced 
 the true doctrine in opposition to it to a higher and stronger 
 foundation. The letter addressed on that subject from the De- 
 partment of State to the British plenipotentiary, and his answer, 
 are among the papers. I only wish the letter to be read. It re- 
 cites the general history of the question between England and 
 the United States. Lord Ashburton had no authority to make 
 stipulations on the subject ; but that is a circumstance which I 
 do not regret, because I do not deem the subject as one at all 
 proper for treaty stipulation. [Mr. Webster here read extracts 
 irom the letter, and, among others, this :] 
 
 '' III the early disputes between the two governments, on this so-long contested 
 topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of 
 this department, declared, that ' the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being 
 American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such.' 
 
 " Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful 
 reconsideration now had of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions 
 are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have 
 fully convinced this government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the 
 only rule which can be adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and 
 honor of the United States, and the security of their citizens. That rule announ- 
 ces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their govern- 
 ment. In evkry regularly documentkd American merchant vessel, the 
 
 CREW WHO navigate IT WILL FIND THEIR PROTECTION IN THE FLAG WHICH IS 
 OVER THEM." 
 
 And then proceeded : This declaration will stand, not on 
 account of any particular ability displayed in the letter which 
 it concludes, still less on account of the name subscribed to it; 
 but it will stand, because it announces the true principles of pub- 
 
298 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPER?. 
 
 lie law ; because it announces the great doctrine of the equal- 
 ity and infle])endence of nations upon the seas; and because it 
 declares the deterinination of the govcrnnient and the people 
 of the United States to uphold those principles, and to maintain 
 that doctrine, through good report and through evil report, for- 
 ever. We shall negotiate no more, nor attempt to negotiate 
 more, about impressment. We shall not treat hereafter of its 
 limitation to parallels of latitude and longitude. We shall not 
 treat of its allowance or disallowance in broad seas or narrow 
 seas. We shall think no more of stipulating for exemption, from 
 its exercise, of some of the persons composing crews. Hence- 
 forth the deck of every American vessel is inaccessible for any 
 such purjtose. It is protected, guarded, defended by the dec- 
 laration which I have read, and that declaration will stand. 
 
 Sir, another most important question of maritime law, grow- 
 ing out of the case of the " Creole," and other similar cases, was 
 the subject of a letter to the British plenipotentiary, and of an 
 answer from him. An honorable member from South Caroli- 
 na (Mr. Calhoun) had taken, as is well known, a great interest 
 in the matter involved in that question. He had expressed his 
 opinion of its importance here, and had been sustained by the 
 Senate. Occasion was taken of Lord Ashburton's mission to 
 communicate to him and to his government the opinions which 
 this government entertained ; and I would now ask the honor- 
 able member if any similar cause of complaint has since arisen. 
 [Mr. Calhoun said he had heard of none.] I trust, sir, that 
 none will arise hereafter. I refer to the letter to Lord Ash- 
 burton on this subject, as containing what the American gov- 
 ernment regarded as the true principle of the maritime law, 
 and to his very sensible and proper answer. 
 
 Mr. President, I have reached the end of these remarks, and 
 the completion of my purpose ; and I am now ready, sir, to put 
 the question to the Senate, and to the country, whether the north- 
 eastern boundary has not been fairly and satisfactorily settled ; 
 whether proper satisfaction and apology have not been obtained 
 for an aggression on the soil and territory of the United States ; 
 whether proper and safe stipulations have not been entered 
 into for the fulfillment of the duty of the government, and for 
 meeting the earnest desire of the people in the suppression of 
 the slave trade; whether, in pursuance of these stipulations, a 
 degree of success in the attainment of that object has not been 
 reached wholly unknown bel'ore ; whether crimes, disturbing 
 the peace of nations, have not been suppressed; whether the 
 safety of the southern coasting trade has not been secured ; 
 whether impressment has not been struck out from the list of 
 contested questions among nations ; and finally, and more than 
 all, whether any thing has been done to tarnish the luster of the 
 American name and character 1 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 299 
 
 Mr. President, my best services, like those of every other 
 good citizen, are due to my country ; and I submit them, and 
 their results, in all humility, to her judgment. But standing 
 here to-day, in the Senate of the United States, and speaking 
 in behalf of the administration of which I formed a part, and 
 in behalf of the two houses of Congress who sustained that ad- 
 ministration, cordially and effectual ly, in every thing relating to 
 this day's discussion, I am willing to appeal to the public men 
 of the age, whether, in 1842, and in the city of Washington, 
 something was not done for the suppression of crime, for the 
 true exposition of the principles of public law, for the freedom 
 and security of commerce on the ocean, and for the peace of 
 the world. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Mr. IVheaton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Berlin, November 15, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Your dispatch No. 36, inclosing a copy of the treaty recently concluded at 
 Washington, between the United States and Great Britain, has just reached me. 
 I beg leave to congi'atulatc you, sir, on the happy termination of this arduous nego- 
 tiation, in which the rights, honor, and interests of our country have been so suc- 
 cessfully maiatained. The arrangement it contains on the subject of the African 
 slave trade is particularly satisfactory, as adapted to secure the end proposed by 
 the only means consistent with our maritime rights. This arrangement has de- 
 cided the course of the French government in respect to this matter. Its embas- 
 sador in London notified to the conference of the five great powers the final de- 
 termination of France not to ratify the treaty of December, 1841, and, at the same 
 time, expressed her disposition to ftilfill the stipulations of the separate treaties of 
 1831 and 1834, between her and Great Britain. The treaty of 1841, therefore, 
 now subsists only between four of the great powers by whom it was originally 
 concluded ; and as three of these (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) are very little con- 
 cerned in the navigation of the ocean and the trade in the African seas, and have, 
 besides, taken precautions in the treaty itself to secure their commerce from in- 
 terruption by the exercise of the right of search in other parts, this compact may 
 now be considered as almost a dead letter. 
 
 The policy of the United States may consequently be said, on this occasion, per- 
 haps for the first time, to have had a most decisive influence on that of Europe. 
 This will probably more frequently occur hereafter; and it should be an encour- 
 agement to us to cultivate our maritime resources, and to strengthen our naval 
 arm, by which aloue we are known and felt among the nations of the earth. 
 
 Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the Suppression 
 of the Traffic in Slaves. — [extract.] 
 
 Article I. In order that the flags of her majesty the Queen of the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of his majesty the King of the French, 
 7nay not, contrary to the law of nations and the laws in force in the two countries, 
 be usui-ped to cover the slave trade, and in order to provide for the more eflectual 
 suppression of that traffic, his majesty the King of the French engages, as soon as 
 may be practicable, to station on the west coast of Africa, from Cape Verd to 16° 
 30' south latitude, a naval force of at least twenty-six cruisers, consisting of sailing 
 and steam vessels; and her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland engages, as soon as may be practicable, to station on the same 
 part of the west coast of Africa a naval force of not less than twenty-six cruisers, 
 consisting of sailing vessels and steam vessels ; and on the east coast of Africa such 
 number of cruisers as her majesty shall judge suflScient for the prevention of the 
 
300 nUM-OMATlC Ai\D OFl'ICIAI, PAI'EUS. 
 
 trade on that coast; which cruisers shall be employed for the purposes above 
 meiitioued, in conformity with the following; stipulations. 
 
 Artici.k II. The said British and French naval forces shall act in concert for 
 the suppression of the slave trade. It will be their duty to watch strictly every 
 part of the west coast of Africa within the limits described in Article I., where 
 the slave trade is carried on. For this j)urposo they shall exercise fully and com- 
 pletely all the powers vested in the crowns of Great Britain and France for the 
 Bupijression of the slave trade, subject only to the modifications hereinafter men- 
 tioned as to British and French ships. 
 
 Article III. The (officers of her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and of his mnjesty the King of the French, having re- 
 fc-peclively the command of the squadrons of Great Britain and France, to be em- 
 ployed in cariying out this Convention, shall concert together as to the best means 
 of watching strictly the parts of the African coast before described, by selecting 
 and defining the stations, and committing the care thereof to English and French 
 cruisers, jointly or separately, as may be deemed most e.xpedient ; provided al- 
 ways, that in case of a station being specially committed to the charge of cruis- 
 ers of either nation, the cruisers of the other nation may at any time enter the 
 same for the purpose of exercising the rights respectively belonging to them for 
 the suppression of the slave trade. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 301 
 
 RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 
 
 Message from the President of the United States, transmitting 
 Copies of Papers upon the Subject of the Relations between the 
 United States and the Mexican Republic, July 14, 1842. 
 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives 
 of the 12th instant, requesting copies of papers upon the subject 
 of the relations between the United States and the Mexican 
 Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, and 
 the documents by which it was accompanied, 
 
 John Tylee. 
 
 Washington, July 14, 1842. 
 
 To the President of the United States : 
 
 Sir, — The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the res- 
 o ution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, request- 
 ing the President to cause to be communicated to that House, 
 so far as might be compatible with the public interest, copies 
 of all the correspondence between the governments of the 
 United States and of Mexico, since the appointment of the 
 present envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of 
 the United States to Mexico ; of the instructions given to that 
 minister at and since his departure upon his mission, and of 
 his dispatches to this government, and particularly of any com- 
 plaint of the government of Mexico, alleging the toleration, 
 by the government of the United States, of hostile interference 
 by their citizens in the war between Mexico and Texas, and 
 of any answer, on the part of this government, to such com- 
 plaint, has the honor to lay before the President the papers 
 mentioned in the accompanying list. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, July 13, 1842. 
 Mr. Velazquez de Leon to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 New York, June 24, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, in addressing the Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 Secretary of State, has the honor to inform him that, although 
 he holds in his power the appointment and credentials for pre- 
 senting himself and acting as charge d'affaires of Mexico in the 
 United States, he has not thought proper to present himself for 
 
302 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 that purpose, until he had received the answer to the ooserva- 
 tions which he had addressed to his own government on that 
 subject ; but as he has received recently, and during this delay, 
 the two annexed documents for his excellency the President 
 and the Hon. Daniel Webster, he hastens to send them on, in 
 order that, upon their arriving as soon as possible at their des- 
 tination, the honorable Secretary of State may give such an- 
 swer as the government of the United States may judge prop- 
 er ; which answer the undersigned will transmit to the Mex- 
 ican government, according to his instructions to that effect. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
 the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, the assurances 
 of his high consideration. 
 
 Joaquin Velazquez de Leon 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of Slate. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Velazquez de Leon. 
 
 Dkpaktment of State, Washington, June 29, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Your letter of the 24th of this month, transmitting one 
 addressed to this department by the Secretary of State and 
 Foreign Relations of the Mexican Republic, was duly received. 
 
 The President has long desired to see here a representative 
 of that government, the residence of such a functionary being 
 esteemed likely to foster and promote the peace and interests 
 of the two countries. We are happy to hear that an appoint- 
 ment has at length been made ; and all just respect will be 
 paid to your credentials, whenever it shall be your pleasure to 
 present them. Until such presentment be made, however, no 
 regular diplomatic intercourse can be had between this depart- 
 ment and yourself. Whatever answer may be judged proper 
 to the letter of Mr. De Bocanegra to this department will be 
 transmitted through the minister of the United States at Mexico. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Seiior Don Joaquin Velazquez de Leon. 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, May 12, 18-12. 
 
 The undersigned, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, 
 enjoys the satisfaction of addressing the honorable Secretary 
 of State of the United States of America, in the name and by 
 the express order of his excellency the President of the Mex- 
 ican Republic. The relations of amity and good harmony 
 which have happily subsisted between this and your great na- 
 tion might have been disturbed in a lamentable manner, since 
 the year 1835, when the revolution of Texas broke out, if the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 303 
 
 Mexican government Iiatl not given so many evidences of its 
 forbearance, and had not made so many and so great sacrifices 
 for the sake of peace, in order that the world might not, with 
 pain and amazement, see the two nations which appear to be 
 destined to cstabHsh the pohcy and the interests of the Ameri- 
 can continent divided and ravaged by the evils of war. 
 
 But, from that truly unfortunate period, the Mexican Re- 
 public has received nothing but severe injuries and inflictions 
 from the citizens of the United States. The Mexican govern- 
 ment speaks only of the citizens of the United States, as it still 
 flatters itself with the belief that it is not the government of 
 that country which has promoted the insurrection in Texas, 
 which has favored the usurpation of its territory, and has sup- 
 plied the rebels with ammunition, arms, vessels, money, and 
 recruits ; but that these aggressions have proceeded from pri- 
 vate individuals, who have not respected the solemn engage- 
 ments which bind together the two nations, nor the treaties 
 concluded between them, nor the conduct, ostensibly frank, of 
 the cabinet of Washington. 
 
 It is, however, notorious, that the insurgent colonists of that 
 integral part of the territory of the Mexican Republic would 
 have been unable to maintain their prolonged rebellion, with- 
 out the aid and the efficient sympathies of citizens of the Unit- 
 ed States, who have publicly raised forces in their cities and 
 towns ; have fitted out vessels in their ports, and laden them 
 with munitions of war ; and have marched to commit hostili- 
 ties against a friendly nation, under the eyes and with the 
 knowledge of the authorities to whom are intrusted the fulfill- 
 ment of the law. 
 
 The Mexican government entertains so high an opinion of 
 the force of the government of the United States, and of its 
 power to restrain those its subjects from violating the religious 
 faith of treaties, solemnly concluded between it and other na- 
 tions, and from committing hostilities against such nations in 
 time of peace, that it can not easily comprehend how those 
 persons have been able to evade the punishment decreed 
 against them by the laws of the United States themselves, and 
 to obtain that quiet impunity which incessantly encourages 
 them to continue their attacks. It is well worthy of remark, 
 that, no sooner does the Mexican government, in the exercise 
 of its rights, which it can not and does not desire to renounce, 
 prepare means to recover a possession usurped from it, than 
 the whole population of the United Stntes, especially in the 
 Southern States, is in commotion; and in the most public man- 
 ner, a large portion of them is turned upon Texas, in order to 
 prevent the rebels from being subjected by the Mexican arms, 
 and brought back to proper obedience. 
 
304 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAI, PAPERS. 
 
 Could proceedings more hostile, on the part of the United 
 States, have taken place, had that country been at war with 
 the Mexican Republic? Could the insurgents of Texas have 
 obtained a co-operation more effective or more favorable to 
 their interests? Certainly not. The civilized world looks on 
 with amazement, and the Mexican government is filled with 
 unspeakable regret, as it did hope, and had a right to hope, 
 that, living in peace with the United States, your government 
 would preserve our territory from the invasions of your own 
 subjects. The vicinity of a friend is an advantage rather than 
 an inconvenience; but if one neighbor oversteps the sacred 
 limits imposed by treaties, and disturbs and harasses another, 
 it can not be maintained that the friendship of the former is 
 real, and that much confidence should be placed in it. 
 
 The government of the Mexican Republic, therefore, which 
 regards the faithful fulfillment of treaties as its highest obliga- 
 tion, which anxiously desires to preserve and increase its 
 friendly relations with the people and the government of the 
 United States, finds itself under the necessity of protesting sol- 
 emnly against the aggressions which the citizens of those 
 states are constantly repeating upon the Mexican territory, 
 and of declaring, in a positive manner, that it considers as a 
 violation of the treaty of amity the toleration of a course of 
 conduct which produces an incomprehensible state of things — 
 a state neither of peace nor war — but inflicting upon the Mex- 
 ican Republic the same injuries and inconveniences as if war 
 had been declared between the two nations, which are called 
 by Providence to form with each other relations and bonds of 
 extreme and cordial friendship. 
 
 And the undersigned, in complying with this order from the 
 most excellent Provisional President of the Republic of Mexi- 
 co, assures you, sir, of the high consideration with which he 
 remains your obedient servant, J. M. de Bocawegra. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States of America. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. — [copy.] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, Jttly 8, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — On the 29th of last month, a communication was re- 
 ceived at this department from Mr. De Bocanegra, Secretary 
 of State and Foreign Relations of the government of Mexico, 
 having been forwarded through the agency of Mr. Velazquez 
 de Leon, at New York, who informed the department, by a 
 letter accompanying that of Mr. De Bocanegra, that he had 
 been appointed charge d'affliires of the Mexican Republic to 
 this government, although he had not yet presented his creden- 
 tials. Mr. De Bocanegra's letter is addressed to the Secretary 
 of State of the United States, and bears date the 12th of May. 
 
DIPLOMATIC ASD OFFICIAL PAPERS. 305 
 
 A copy, together with a copy of the communication from Mr. 
 Velazquez de Leon, transmitting it, and of the answer to Mr. 
 Velazquez de Leon from this department, you will receive 
 herewith. Upon the receipt of this dispatch, you will imme- 
 diately address a note to Mr. De Bocanegra, in which you will 
 say, that 
 
 The Secretary of State of the United States has received a 
 letter addressed to him by Mr. De Bocanegra, under date of 
 the 12th of May, and transmitted to the Department of State 
 at Washington, through the agency of Mr. Velazquez de Leon, 
 at New York, who informs the government of the United 
 States that he has been appointed charge d'affaires of the Mex- 
 ican Republic, although he has not presented his letter of cre- 
 dence. 
 
 The government of the United States sees with regret the 
 adoption, on this occasion, of a form of communication quite 
 unusual in diplomatic intercourse, and for which no necessity 
 is known. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
 tiary of the United States, fully accredited to the government 
 of Mexico, was at that moment in its capital, in the actual dis- 
 charge of his functions, and ready to receive on behalf of his 
 government any communication which it might be the pleasure 
 of the President of the Mexican Republic to make to it. And 
 it is not improper to here add, that it has been matter of regret 
 with the government of the United States, that while, being 
 animated with a sincere desire at all times to cultivate the 
 most amicable relations with Mexico, it has not failed to main- 
 tain, near that government, a mission of the highest rank known 
 to its usages, Mexico, for a long time, has had no representa- 
 tive near the government of the United States. 
 
 But the manner of the communication from Mr. De Boca- 
 negra, however novel and extraordinary, is less important than 
 its contents and character, which surprise the government of 
 the United States, by a loud complaint of the violation of its 
 neutral duties. Mr. De Bocanegra, speaking, as he says, by 
 the express order of the President of the Mexican Republic, 
 declares that the amicable relations between the two countries 
 might have been lamentably disturbed since the year 1835, 
 when the revolution of Texas broke out, had not Mexico given 
 so many evidences of its forbearxince, and made so many and 
 so great sacrifices for the sake of peace, in order that the world 
 might not see, with pain and amazement, two nations which 
 appear destined to establish the policy and interests of the 
 American continent divided and ravaged by the evils of war. 
 
 This language implies that such has been the conduct of the^ 
 United States toward Mexico, that war must have ensued be- 
 fore the present time, had not Mexico made great sacrifices to- 
 
 U 
 
30G DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 avoid such a result : a charge which the government of the 
 United States utterly denies and repels. It is wholly ignorant 
 of any sacrifices made by Mexico in order to preserve peace, 
 or of any occasion calling on its government to manifest uncom- 
 mon forbearance. On the contrary, the government of the 
 United States can not but be of opinion that, if the history of 
 the occurrences between the two governments, and the state of 
 things at this moment existing between them, be regarded, both 
 the one and the other will demonstrate that it is the conduct of 
 the government of the United States which has been marked, 
 in an especial manner, by moderation and forbearance. In- 
 juries and wrongs have been sustained by citizens of the Unit- 
 ed States, not inflicted by individual Mexicans, but by the au- 
 thorities of the government; for which injuries and wrongs, 
 numerous as they are, and outrageous as is the character of 
 some of them, and acknowledged as they are by Mexico her- 
 self, redress has been sought only by mild and peaceable means, 
 and no indemnity asked but such as the strictest justice imper- 
 atively demanded. A desire not to disturb the peace and har- 
 mony of the two countries has led the government of the Unit- 
 ed States to be content with the lowest measure of remunera- 
 tion. Mexico herself must admit that, in all these transactions, 
 the conduct of the United States toward her has been signal- 
 ized, not by the infliction of injuries, but by the manifestation 
 of a friendly feeling and a conciliatory spirit. 
 
 The government of the United States will not be unjust in 
 its sentiments toward Mexico ; it will not impute to its govern- 
 ment any desire to disturb the peace ; it acquits it of any de- 
 sign to spread the ravages and horrors of war over the two 
 countries ; and it leaves it to Mexico herself to avow her own 
 motives for her pacific policy, if she have any other motive 
 than those of expediency and justice ; provided, however, that 
 such avowal of her motives carry with it no imputation or re- 
 flection upon the good faith and honor of the United States. 
 
 The revolution in Texas, and the events connected with it 
 and springing out of it, are Mr. De Bocanegra's principal topic; 
 and it is in relation to these that his complaint is founded. His 
 government, he says, flatters itself that the government of the 
 United States has not promoted the insurrection in Texas, fa- 
 vored the usurpation of its territory, or supplied the rebels with 
 vessels, ammunition, and money. If Mr. De Bocanegra intends 
 this as a frank admission of the honest and cautious neutrality 
 of the government of the United States in the contest between 
 Mexico and Texas, he docs that government justice, and no 
 more than justice ; but if the language be intended to intimate 
 an opposite and a reproachful meaning, that meaning is only 
 the more offensive for beinci: insinuated rather than distinctlv 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 307' 
 
 avowed. Mr. De Bocanegra would seem to represent that, 
 from 1835 to the present time, citizens of the United States, if 
 not their government, have been aiding rebels in Texas in arms 
 against the lawful authority of Mexico. This is not a little ex- 
 traordinary. Mexico may have chosen to consider, and may 
 still choose to consider, Texas as having been at all times, since 
 1835, and as still continuing, a rebellious province; but the 
 world has been obliged to take a very different view of the mat- 
 ter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, 
 to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same external 
 signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite 
 as much stability of government. Practically free and inde- 
 pendent, acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the prin- 
 cipal powers of the world, no hostile foot finding rest within 
 her territory for six or seven years, and Mexico herself refrain- 
 ing, for all that period, from any further attempt to re-establish 
 her own authority over that territory, it can not but be surpris- 
 ing to find Mr. De Bocanegra complaining that, for that whole 
 period, citizens of the United States, or its government, have 
 been favoring the rebels of Texas, and supplying them with 
 vessels, ammunition, and money, as if the war for the reduction 
 of the province of Texas had been constantly prosecuted by 
 Mexico, and her success prevented by these influences from 
 abroad ! 
 
 The general facts appertaining to the settlement of Texas, 
 and the revolution in its government, can not but be well 
 known to Mr. De Bocanegra. By the treaty of the 22d of 
 February, 1819, between the United States and Spain, the Sab- 
 ine was adopted as the line of boundary between the two pow- 
 ers. Up to that period, no considerable colonization had been 
 effected in Texas ; but the territory between the Sabine and 
 the Rio Grande being confirmed to Spain by the treaty, ap- 
 plications were made to that power for grants of land ; and 
 such grants, or permissions of settlement, were, in fact, made 
 by the Spanish authorities in favor of citizens of the United 
 States proposing to emigrate to Texas in numerous families, 
 before the declaration of independence by Mexico. And 
 these early grants were confirmed, as is well known, by suc- 
 cessive acts of the Mexican government, after its separation 
 from Spain. In January, 1823, a national colonization law 
 was passed, holding out strong inducements to all persons 
 who should incline to undertake the settlement of uncultivated 
 lands ; and although the Mexican law prohibited for a time 
 citizens of foreign countries from settling, as colonists, in terri- 
 tories immediately adjoining such foreign countries, yet even 
 this restriction was afterward repealed or suspended ; so that, 
 in fact, Mexico, from the commencement of her political exist- 
 
308 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ence. held out the most liberal inducements to emigrants into 
 her territories, with full knowledge that these inducements were 
 likely to act, and expecting they would act, with the greatest 
 effect upon citizens of the United States, especially of the 
 Southern States, whose agricultural pursuits naturally ren- 
 dered the rich lands of Texas, so well suited to their accus- 
 tomed occupation, objects of desire to them. The early col- 
 onists of the United States, introduced by Moses and Stephen 
 Austin under these inducements and invitations, were persons 
 of most respectable character, and their undertaking was at- 
 tended with very severe hardships, occasioned in no small de- 
 gree by the successive changes in the government of Mexico. 
 They nevertheless persevered, and accomplished a settlement. 
 And, under the encouragements and allurements thus held out 
 by Mexico, other emigrants followed, and many thousand col- 
 onists from the United States and elsewhere had settled in 
 Texas, w^ithin ten years from the date of Mexican independ- 
 ence. Having some reason to complain, as they thought, of 
 the government over them, and especially of the aggressions 
 of the Mexican military stationed in Texas, they sought relief 
 by applying to the supreme government for the separation of 
 Texas from Coahuila, and for a local government for Texas 
 itself. Not having succeeded in this object, in the process of 
 time, and in the progress of events, they saw fit to attempt an 
 entire separation from Mexico, to set up a government of their 
 own, and to establish a political sovereignty. War ensued ; 
 and the battle of San Jacinto, fought on the 21st of April, 1836, 
 achieved their independence. The war was from that time at 
 an end, and in March follow^ing the independence of Texas was 
 formally acknowledged by the government of the United States. 
 
 In the events leading to the actual result of these hostilities 
 the United States had no agency, and took no part. Its gov- 
 fernment had, from the first, abstained from giving aid or suc- 
 cor to either party. It knew its neutral obligations, and fairly 
 endeavored to fulfill them all. It acknowledged the independ- 
 ence of Texas only when that independence was an apparent 
 and an ascertained fact ; and its example in this particular has 
 been followed by several of the most considerable powers of 
 Europe. 
 
 It has been sometimes stated, as if for the purpose of giving 
 more reason to the complaints of Mexico, that, of the military 
 force which acted against Mexico with efficiency and success 
 in 1836, a large portion consisted of volunteers then fresh from 
 the United States. But this is a great error. It is well ascer- 
 tained, that of those who bore arms in the Texan ranks in the 
 battle of San Jacinto, three fourths, at least, were colonists, in- 
 vited into Texas by the grants and the colonization laws of 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 309 
 
 Mexico, and called to the field by the exigencies of the times 
 in 183G, from their farms and other objects of private pursuit. 
 Mr. De Bocanegra's complaint is two-fold : first, that citizens 
 of the United States have supplied the rebels in Texas with 
 ammunition, arms, vessels, money, and recruits ; have publicly 
 raised forces in their cities and fitted out vessels in their ports, 
 loaded them with munitions of war, and marched to commit 
 hostilities against a friendly nation, under the eye and with the 
 knowledge of the public authorities of the United States. In all 
 this Mr. De Bocanegra appears to forget that, while the United 
 States are at peace with Mexico, they are also at peace with 
 Texas ; that both stand on the same footing of friendly nations ; 
 that, since 1837, the United States have regarded Texas as an 
 independent sovereignty as much as Mexico ; and that trade 
 and commerce with citizens of a government at war with Mex- 
 ico can not, on that account, be regarded as an intercourse by 
 which assistance and succor are given to Mexican rebels. The 
 whole current of Mr. De Bocanegra's remarks runs in the same 
 direction, as if the independence of Texas had not been ac- 
 knowledged. It has been acknowledged ; it was acknowledged 
 in 1837, against the remonstrance and protest of Mexico; and 
 most of the acts of any importance of which Mr. De Bocanegra 
 complains flow necessarily from that recognition. He speaks 
 of Texas as still being " an integral part of the territory of the 
 Mexican Republic ;" but he can not but understand that the 
 United States do not so regard it. The real complaint of Mex- 
 ico, therefore, is, in substance, neither more nor less than a com- 
 plaint against the recognition of Texan independence. It may 
 be thought rather late to repeat that complaint, and not quite 
 just to confine it to the United States, to the exemption of En- 
 gland, France, and Belgium, unless the United States, having 
 been the first to acknowledge the independence of Mexico her- 
 self, are to be blamed for setting an example for the recogni- 
 tion of that of Texas. But it is still true that Mr. De Bocane- 
 gra's specification of his grounds of complaint and remon- 
 strance is mainly confined to such transactions and occurrences 
 as are the natural consequence of the political relations existing 
 between Texas and the United States. Acknowledging Texas 
 to be an independent nation, the government of the United 
 States, of course, allows and encourages lawful trade and com- 
 merce between the two countries. If articles contraband of 
 war be found mingled with this commerce, while Mexico and 
 Texas are belligerent states, Mexico has the right to intercept 
 the transit of such articles to her enemy. This is the common 
 right of all belligerents, and belongs to Mexico in the same ex- 
 tent as to other nations. But Mr. De Bocanegra is quite well 
 aware that it is not the practice of nations to undertake to pro- 
 
310 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 liibit their own subjects, by previous laws, from trafficking in 
 articles contraband of war. Such trade is carried on at the 
 risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and penalties 
 prescribed by the law of nations or by particular treaties. If 
 it be true, therefore, that citizens of the United States have 
 been engaged in a commerce by which Texas, an enemy of 
 Mexico, has been supplied with arms and munitions of war, 
 tiie government of the United States, nevertheless, was not 
 bound to prevent it, could not have prevented it, without a man- 
 liest departure from the principles of neutrality, and is in no 
 way answerable for the consequences. The treaty of the 5th 
 of April, 1831, between the United States and Mexico itself, 
 shows most clearly how little foundation there is for the com- 
 plaint of trading with Texas, if Texas is to be regarded as a 
 public enemy of Mexico. The 16th article declares, " It shall 
 likewise be lawful for the aforesaid citizens, respectively, to 
 sail with their vessels and merchandise before mentioned, and 
 to trade, with the same liberty and security, from the places, 
 ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both or either 
 party, without any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, not 
 only directly from the places of the enemy before mentioned 
 to neutral places, but also from one place belonging to an en- 
 emy to another place belonging to an enemy, wdiether they be 
 under the jurisdiction of the same government, or under sev- 
 eral." 
 
 The 18th article enumerates those commodities which shall 
 be regarded as contraband of war ; but neither that article nor 
 any other imposes on either nation any duty of preventing, by 
 previous regulation, commerce in such articles. Such com- 
 merce is leit to its ordinary fate, according to the law of na- 
 tions. It is only, therefore, by insisting, as Mr. De Bocanegra 
 does insist, that Texas is still a part of Mexico, that he can 
 maintain any complaint. Let it be repeated, therefore, that if 
 the things against which he remonstrates be wrong, they have 
 their source in the original wrong of the acknowledgment of 
 Texan independence. But that acknowledgment is not likely 
 to be retracted. 
 
 Thei'e can be no doubt at all that, for the last six years, the 
 trade in articles contraband of war between the United States 
 and Mexico has been greater than between the United States 
 and Texas. It is probably greater at the present moment. 
 Why has not Texas a right to complain of this ( For no rea^ 
 son, certainly, but because the permission to trade, or the actual 
 trading, by the citizens of a government, in articles contraband 
 of war, is not a breach of neutrality, 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra professes himself unable to comprehend 
 how those persons of whom he complains have been able to 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 311 
 
 evade the punishment decreed against them by the laws of the 
 United States ; but he does not appear to have a clear idea of 
 the principles or provisions of those laws. The duties of neu- 
 tral nations in time of war are prescribed by the law of na- 
 tions, which is imperative and binding upon all governments ; 
 and nations not unfrequently establish municipal regulations for 
 the better government of the conduct of their subjects or citizens. 
 
 This has been done by the United States, in order to main- 
 tain with greater certainty a strict and impartial neutrality 
 pending war between other countries. And wherever a vio- 
 lation of neutral duties, as they exist by the law of nations, or 
 any breach of its own laws, has been brought to the notice of 
 the government, attention has always been paid to it. 
 
 At an early period of the Texan Revolution, strict orders 
 were given by the President of the United States to all officers 
 on the south and southwestern frontier, to take care that those 
 laws should be observed ; and the attention of the government 
 of the United States has not been called to any specific viola- 
 tion of them since the manifestation on the part of Mexico of 
 an intention to renew hostilities with Texas ; and all officers 
 of the government remain charged with the strict and faithful 
 execution of these laws. On a recent occasion, complaint was 
 made by the representatives of Texas that an armament was 
 fitted out in the United States for the service of Mexico against 
 Texas. 
 
 Two vessels of war, it was alleged, built or purchased in 
 the United States, for the use of the government of Mexico, 
 and well understood as intended to be employed against Texas, 
 wei-e equipped and ready to sail from the waters of New York. 
 The case was carefully inquired into, official examination was 
 made, and legal counsel invoked. It appeared to be a case of 
 great doubt ; but Mexico was allowed the benefit of that doubt, 
 and the vessels left the United States, with the whole or a part 
 of their armament actually on board. The same administra- 
 tion of even-handed justice, the same impartial execution of the 
 laws toward all parties, will continue to be observed. 
 
 If forces have been raised in the United States, or vessels 
 fitted out in their ports for Texan service, contrary to law, no 
 instance of which has yet come to the knowledge of the gov- 
 ernment, pi-ompt attention will be paid to the first case, and to 
 all cases which may be made known to it. As to advances, 
 loans, or donations of money or goods, made by individuals to 
 the government of Texas or its citizens, Mr. De Bocanegra 
 hardly needs to be informed that there is nothing unlawful in 
 this, so long as Texas is at peace with the United States, and 
 that these are things which no government undertakes to re- 
 strain. Other citizens are equally at liberty, should they be so 
 
314 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 not already and long ago acknowledged the independence of 
 Texas, how long they sliould be expected to wait for the ac- 
 complishment of the object, now existing only in purpose and 
 intention, of the resubjugation of that territory by Mexico? 
 
 How long, let it be asked, in the judgment of Mexico her- 
 self, is the fact of actual independence to be held of no avail 
 against an avowed purpose of future recontpiest 1 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra is pleased to say that, if war actually ex- 
 isted between the two countries, proceedings more hostile, on 
 the part of the United States, could not have taken place, nor 
 the insurgents of Texas obtained more effectual co-operation 
 than they have obtained. 
 
 This opinion, however hazardous to the discernment and just 
 estimate of things of those who avow it, is yet abstract and 
 theoretical, and, so far, harmless. 
 
 The efficiency of American hostility to Mexico has never 
 been tried ; the government has no desire to try it. It would 
 not disturb the peace for the sake of showing how erroneously 
 Mr. De Bocanegra has reasoned ; while, on the other hand, it 
 trusts that a just hope may be entertained that Mexico will not 
 inconsiderately and needlessly hasten into an experiment by 
 which the truth or fallacy of his sentiments may be brought to 
 an actual ascertainment, 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra declares, in conclusion, that his govern- 
 ment finds itself under the necessity of protesting solemnly 
 against the aggressions which the citizens of the United States 
 are reiterating upon the Mexican territory, and of declaring, 
 in a positive manner, that it will consider as a violation of the 
 treaty of amity the toleration of that course of conduct, which 
 he alleges inflicts on the Mexican Republic the injuries and in- 
 conveniences of war. The President exceedingly regrets both 
 the sentiment and the manner of this declaration. But it can 
 admit but of one answer. The Mexican government appears 
 to require that which could not be granted, in whatever lan- 
 guage or whatever tone requested. The government of the 
 United States is a government of law. 
 
 The chief executive magistrate, as well as functionaries in 
 every other department, is restrained and guided by the Con- 
 stitution and the laws of the land. Neither the Constitution, 
 nor the law of the land, nor principles known to the usages 
 of modern states, authorizes him to interdict lawful trade be- 
 tween the United States and Texas, or to prevent, or attempt 
 to prevent, individuals from leaving the United States for Tex- 
 as or any other foreign country. 
 
 If such individuals enter into the service of Texas, or any 
 other foreign state, the government of the United States no 
 longer holds over them the shield of its protection. They 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 315 
 
 must stand or fall in their newly-assumed character, and ac- 
 cording to the fortunes which may betide it. But the govern- 
 ment of the United States can not be called upon to prevent 
 their emigration ; and it must be added, that the Constitution, 
 public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to regard 
 Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of 
 the territory of Mexico. Every provision of law, every prin- 
 ciple of neutral obligation, will be sedulously enforced in rela- 
 tion to Mexico, as in relation to other powers, and to the same 
 extent, and with the same integrity of purpose. All this be- 
 longs to the constitutional power and duty of the government, 
 and it will all be fulfilled. But the continuance of amity with 
 Mexico can not be purchased at any higher rate. If the peace 
 of the two countries is to be disturbed, the responsibility will 
 devolve on Mexico. She must be answerable for consequen- 
 ces. The United States, let it be again repeated, desire peace. 
 It would be with infinite pain that they should find themselves 
 in hostile relations with any of the new governments on this 
 Continent. But their government is regulated, limited, full of 
 the spirit of liberty, but surrounded, nevertheless, with just re- 
 straints ; and, greatly and fervently as it desires peace with all 
 states, and especially with its more immediate neighbors, yet 
 no fear of a ditferent state of things can be allowed to inter- 
 rupt its course of equal and exact justice to all nations, nor to 
 jostle it out of the constitutional orbit in which it revolves. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 Waddy Thompson, Jr., Esq., &c. 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, May 31, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, Minister of Foreign Relations and Gov- 
 ernment of the Mexican Republic, had the honor, a few days 
 since, to address the Honorable Secretary of State of the Unit- 
 ed States, in order to protest formally against the government 
 of that Republic, in the name of his Excellency the Provision- 
 al President, on account of the continual hostilities and aggres- 
 sions of citizens of the United States against the Mexican ter- 
 ritory ; and, although he might hope for a flattering result in 
 the change of proceedings, he finds himself, in consequence of 
 the continuation of those proceedings, under the necessity of 
 again calling the attention of the Secretary of State to the un- 
 deniable toleration which has been and is still afforded to the 
 enemies of a nation sincerely friendly, and bound by the sol- 
 emn compacts of a treaty, which unites the two i-epublics. 
 
 In that note the undersigned, after setting before the Secre- 
 tary the prudence with which the government of Mexico has 
 
314 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 not already and long ago acknowledged the independence of 
 Texas, how long they should be expected to wait for the ac- 
 complishment of the object, now existing only in purpose and 
 intention, of the resubjugation of that territory by Mexico ? 
 
 How long, let it be asked, in the judgment of Mexico her- 
 self, is the fact of actual independence to be held of no avail 
 against an avowed purpose of future reconcjuest? 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra is pleased to say that, if war actually ex- 
 isted between the two countries, proceedings more hostile, on 
 the part of the United States, could not have taken place, nor 
 the insurgents of Texas obtained more effectual co-operation 
 thai) they have obtained. 
 
 This opinion, however hazardous to the discernment and just 
 estimate of things of those who avow it, is yet abstract and 
 theoretical, and, so far, harmless. 
 
 The efficiency of American hostility to Mexico has never 
 been tried ; the government has no desire to try it. It would 
 not disturb the peace for the sake of showing how erroneously 
 Mr. De Bocanegra has reasoned ; while, on the other hand, it 
 trusts that a just hope may be entertained that Mexico will not 
 inconsiderately and needlessly hasten into an experiment by 
 which the truth or fallacy of his sentiments may be brought to 
 an actual ascertainment. 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra declares, in conclusion, that his govern- 
 ment finds itself under the necessity of protesting solemnly 
 against the aggressions which the citizens of the United States 
 are reiterating upon the Mexican territory, and of declaring, 
 in a positive manner, that it will consider as a violation of the 
 treaty of amity the toleration of that course of conduct, which 
 he alleges inflicts on the Mexican Republic the injuries and in- 
 conveniences of war. The President exceedingly regrets both 
 the sentiment and the manner of this declaration. But it can 
 admit but of one answer. The Mexican government appears 
 to require that which could not be granted, in whatever lan- 
 guage or whatever tone requested. The government of the 
 United States is a government of law. 
 
 The chief executive magistrate, as well as functionaries in 
 every other department, is restrained and guided by the Con- 
 stitution and the laws of the land. Neither the Constitution, 
 nor the law of the land, nor principles known to the usages 
 of modern states, authorizes him to interdict lawful trade be- 
 tween the United States and Texas, or to prevent, or attempt 
 to prevent, individuals from leaving the United States for Tex- 
 as or any other foreign country. 
 
 If such individuals enter into the service of Texas, or any 
 other foreign state, the government of the United States no 
 longer holds over them the shield of its protection. They 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 315 
 
 must stand or fall in their newly-assumed character, and ac- 
 cording to the fortunes which may betide it. But the govern- 
 ment of the United States can not be called upon to prevent 
 their emigration ; and it must be added, that the Constitution, 
 public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to regard 
 Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of 
 the territory of Mexico. Every provision of law, every prin- 
 ciple of neutral obligation, will be sedulously enforced in rela- 
 tion to Mexico, as in relation to other powers, and to the same 
 extent, and with the same integrity of purpose. All this be- 
 longs to the constitutional power and duty of the government, 
 and it will all be fulfilled. But the continuance of amity with 
 Mexico can not be purchased at any higher rate. If the peace 
 of the two countries is to be disturbed, the responsibility will 
 devolve on Mexico. She must be answerable for consequen- 
 ces. The United States, let it be again repeated, desire peace. 
 It would be with infinite pain that they should find themselves 
 in hostile relations with any of the new governments on this 
 Continent. But their government is regulated, limited, full of 
 the spirit of liberty, but surrounded, nevertheless, with just re- 
 straints ; and, greatly and fervently as it desires peace with all 
 states, and especially with its more immediate neighbors, yet 
 no fear of a diflferent state of things can be allowed to inter- 
 rupt its course of equal and exact justice to all nations, nor to 
 jostle it out of the constitutional orbit in which it revolves. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Waddy Thompson, Jr., Esq., &c, 
 
 Mr. De Bocanegra to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, May 31, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned. Minister of Foreign Relations and Gov- 
 ernment of the Mexican Republic, had the honor, a few days 
 since, to address the Honorable Secretary of State of the Unit- 
 ed States, in order to protest formally against the government 
 of that Republic, in the name of his Excellency the Provision- 
 al President, on account of the continual hostilities and ao^gres- 
 sions of citizens of the United States against the Mexican ter- 
 ritory ; and, although he might hope for a flattering result in 
 the change of proceedings, he finds himself, in consequence of 
 the continuation of those proceedings, under the necessity of 
 again calling the attention of the Secretary of State to the un- 
 deniable toleration which has been and is still afforded to the 
 enemies of a nation sincerely friendly, and bound by the sol- 
 emn compacts of a treaty, which unites the two republics. 
 
 In that note the undersigned, after setting before the Secre- 
 tary the prudence with which the government of Mexico has 
 
316 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 sought, ever since the commencement of the revolution of Tex- 
 as, to conduct all its relations with the United States, so as to 
 avoid a rupture between the two nations, which, from their im- 
 portance and other serious considerations, seem destined to fix 
 the policy and the lot of the vast and rich Continent of Ameri- 
 ca, he flattered himself with the idea that the cabinet of Wash- 
 ington would not protect, either openly or secretly, or in any 
 way, the scandalous usurpation of an acknowledged portion of 
 the national territory. He, however, regrets that he must 
 judge from facts, open to all the world, that the very cabinet 
 of the United States, and the subaltern and local authorities, do 
 observe a conduct openly at variance with the most sacred 
 principles of the law of nations and the solemn compacts of 
 amity existing between the two nations ; sufficient proof being 
 afforded by the consent given to the formation of the most tu- 
 multuous public assemblies, in various parts of the United 
 States themselves, to the equipment of armaments, and the em- 
 barkation of volunteers in large bodies, and to the preparation 
 and disposal of every thing calculated to contribute to aid the 
 Texans, and to the invasion of a neighboring and friendly re- 
 public. 
 
 The Mexican government can not understand such conduct ; 
 and, being itself frank in its proceedings, and animated at the 
 same time by a sincere desire that the relations now existing 
 between this republic and the United States should not suffer 
 the slightest alteration, it considers itself bound in duty to re- 
 peat, with every formality, its former protest against such tol- 
 eration ; the continuance of which it will regard as a positive 
 act of hostility against this republic, which will regulate the 
 conduct to be observed by it agreeably to the dictates of jus- 
 tice and to the interests and dignity of the nation. 
 
 The undersigned hopes that the secretary will be pleased to 
 reply with that promptness which the importance of the subject 
 requires; and he avails himself, with pleasure, of this opportu- 
 nity to repeat to that gentleman the assurance of his most dis- 
 tinguished consideration, with which he remains, &c., 
 
 J. M. DE BoCANEGRA. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United States of America. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Department of State, Washingtmi, July 13, 1812. 
 
 Sir, — After writing to you on the 8th instant, I received, 
 through the same channel as the former, Mr. De Bocanegra's 
 second letter, and at the same time your dispatch of the 6th 
 of June, and your private letter of the 21st. This last letter 
 of Mr. De Bocanegra was written, as you will see, before it 
 was possible for him to expect an answer to his first, which 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 317 
 
 answer is now forwarded, and shows the groundless nature of 
 the complaints of Mexico. The letter itself is highly excep- 
 tionable and oflensive. It imputes violations of honor and good 
 faith to the government of the United States, not only m the 
 most unjust, but in the most indecorous manner. You have 
 not spoken of it in terms too strong in your circular to the 
 members of the diplomatic corps. tv/t -n tj 
 
 On the receipt of this, vou will write a note to M.r.JJe Jio- 
 canegra, in which you wi'll say that the Secretary ol State of 
 the United States, on the 9th of July, received his letter of the 
 31st of May. That the President of the United States consid- 
 ers the language and tone of that letter derogatory to the char- 
 acter of the United States, and highly offensive, as it imputes 
 to their government a direct breach of faith ; and that he di- 
 rects that no other answer be given to it, than the declaration 
 that the conduct of the government of the United States, in re- 
 gard to the war between Mexico and Texas, having been al- 
 ways hitherto governed by a strict and impartial regard to its 
 neutral obligations, will not be changed or altered in any re- 
 spect or in any degree. If for this the government of Mexico 
 shall see fit to change the relations at present existing between 
 the two countries, the responsibility remains with herselt. 
 1 am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Waddt Thompson-, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister > 
 Plenipotentiary of the United States, Mexico. J 
 
 RESPECTING THE AMERICAN CITIZENS CAP- 
 TURED AT SANTA FE. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Ellis. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 3, 1842. 
 
 Sir —The friends of Mr. Franklin Coombs, son of General 
 Leslie Coombs, of Kentucky, have applied for the interposition 
 of this government in behalf of that young gentleman, who ac- 
 companied the late Texan expedition to Santa Fe, m Mexico 
 and is supposed to have been captured, and, if alive, to be held 
 in bondafre in that country, with the other survivors ot the ex- 
 pedition "^ It has been represented to this department that young 
 Coombs has never been a citizen of Texas ; that he did not re- 
 pair to that country with any intention of relinquishing his al- 
 legiance to this government, or of remaining in Texas ; but 
 that he went thither in the autumn of 1840, upon private busi- 
 ness of his father, and for the benefit which he was assured his 
 feeble health would derive from the milder winter climate ot 
 that re^-ion. He was, however, detained there by both causes 
 
318 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS, 
 
 until about the time when the expedition referred to set out. 
 This he determined to accompany, merely for the object of con- 
 firming his health, and gratifying a curiosity, both liberal and 
 natural, in regard to tlie unknown lands through which the 
 course of the expedition lay. 
 
 As there is no reason to doubt the correctness of this infor- 
 mation, you will, accordingly, forthwith make the necessary 
 representations to the Mexican government upon the subject, 
 with a view to avert from young Coombs, if he should be alive, 
 the dangers to which he may be or may have been exposed. 
 You will state that, from the respectability of his family, and 
 for other reasons, there can be no ground for the belief that he 
 would have accompanied the expedition for any other objects 
 than those mentioned ; and that if he had been aware that the 
 views of the Texan government, in dispatching it, had been 
 hostile or predatory, rather than friendly and commercial, as 
 they were understood to have been at the time, he would not 
 have gone in its company. If to this it be objected that the 
 expedition was military in its array, and must, therefore, be 
 presumed to have had warlike designs against the Mexican au- 
 thorities, it may be answered that the avowed motive of the 
 members of the expedition, in bearing arms, was to ward off 
 the attacks of hostile Indians, and especially of the Camanches, 
 who, it is well known, roam in great force along and across 
 the track which was to have been pursued. This objection 
 would apply with much less, if with any force to young Coombs, 
 as he was no soldier, and had never been one ; and, if found 
 with arms, there could in his case be no better ground for the 
 opinion that they were to have been used for purposes of at- 
 tack, and not for those of defense, than if he had accompanied 
 one of the caravans from Missouri to Santa Fe, by means of 
 which, as is well known, an extensive trade is carried on be- 
 tween this country and Mexico, to the mutual advantage of the 
 parties. 
 
 Although young Coombs is the only American citizen who 
 accompanied the expedition for whom the interference of this 
 government has been asked, it is understood that there was 
 another who as little deserves to be subjected to any penal 
 proceedings on the part of the Mexican government. This is 
 Mr. George W. Kendall, of New Orleans. 
 
 You will press this case with the utmost earnestness on the 
 Mexican government, as the government of the United iStates 
 feels itself bound to interfere, and to signify its confident ex- 
 pectation that the lives of American citizens will not be sacri- 
 ficed, who have not intentionally done any thing of a hostile 
 character against Mexico. Even if the conduct of young 
 Coombs was indiscreet and ill-judged, yet this government can 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS 319 
 
 not suppose that the government of Mexico would treat him as 
 an armed combatant found among its enemies. 
 
 You will spare no pains to impress the Mexican authorities 
 with the feelings which would be excited in this country if any 
 harsh proceeding should be adopted toward this youth. 
 
 You will avail yourself of the opportunity of making to that 
 government this communication, to suggest that, while this 
 government is disposed to maintain with strict fidelity amica- 
 ble relations with the Mexican Republic, and will not attempt 
 to screen from merited punishment any of our citizens who 
 may be guilty of an infraction of the laws intended to preserve 
 those relations, yet that summary, sanguinary, or undue pun- 
 ishment of either Texans or citizens of the United States, in 
 Mexico, inevitably tends to excite and foment in this country 
 an acerbity of feeling against Mexico which will be much 
 more apt to defeat the supposed objects of those punishments 
 than if the offenders were to have a fair trial, and, if then con- 
 victed, were to be punished in some proportion to their offenses. 
 You will, however, make this suggestion in a conciliatory tone, 
 without allowing it to be supposed that this government has 
 any intention to dictate the policy to be adopted by that of the 
 Mexican Republic, upon this or any other subject ; but, sup- 
 posing their disposition toward the United States to be ami- 
 cable, our wish is merely to point a way by which, it seems to 
 us, that reciprocal disposition, as well as the integrity of the 
 Mexican territory, may be more effectually maintained. Ac- 
 customed ourselves to regular judicial proceedings, fair and 
 full trials, and mild punishments, the opposites of these, if exer- 
 cised by other governments, always serve to check the growth 
 of amity and good- will. 
 
 Any reasonable expenses which may be necessary to defray 
 the charge of a special messenger from the Mexican capital to 
 the place of captivity of young Coombs and his American asso- 
 ciates, or for any other proper purposes necessary for their safe- 
 ty and liberation, will be borne by this government, and will 
 be defrayed by you, and for them you will draw on this depart- 
 ment, specifying in your drafts their purpose, and sending with 
 them such vouchers as you may be able to procure. 
 
 The interest which we feel for Coombs, whose case has been 
 particularly presented to us, and for Mr. Kendall also, will lead 
 to the dispatching of this communication in the way most like- 
 ly to carry it soon to your hands. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 To PowHATAS Ellis, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary, SfC, Mexico. 
 
 P. S. — Since the above was written, application has been 
 made in behalf of Mr. J. C. Howard, a youth of nineteen years 
 of age, who was also with the expedition, and who, we are in- 
 
320 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS, 
 
 formed, was not a citizen of Texas. You will likewise inquire 
 into his case, and do for him any thing else which you can do 
 with propriety. D. W. 
 
 3Ir. Webster to Mr. Ellis. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 6, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I addressed you on the 3d instant in behalf of Frank- 
 lin Coombs and Mr. Kendall, captured by the Mexican army, 
 with the Texan expedition, near Santa Fe. The object of this 
 is only to say (what, perhaps, you would not have failed to un- 
 derstand) that, if it should be found that other American citi- 
 zens were made captives, under like circumstances, and with 
 similar claims to immunity and release, you will exert the same 
 interference in their behalf. 
 
 I am, with regard, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 To Powhatan Ellis, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary , ^-c, Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Peyton. — [extracts.] 
 [private.] 
 
 Washington, January 6, 1842. 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your letter to the President, of the 21st of De- 
 cember, has been read by him with great interest and anxiety, 
 although it was not the first communication upon the subject. 
 Letters had been previously received from General Coombs, and 
 information communicated from other quarters, upon which 
 immediate steps were taken. A special messenger has been 
 dispatched from this department, with an instruction to our 
 minister at Mexico, of which I inclose a copy. The President 
 will interfere for the life and safety of young Coombs to the full 
 extent of his duty. You must be aware of the delicacy of the 
 question, at least as it presents itself to us, without more knowl- 
 edge of the facts. 
 
 The President wishes the most effectual means taken, con- 
 sistent with justice and propriety, to secure his safety. * * * 
 On receipt of this, if you should be of opinion that the object in 
 view would be promoted by sending a private agent from New 
 Orleans to co-operate with the American minister in Mexico, 
 the President is willing that such agent, to be selected by you, 
 should be immediately dispatched ; and his necessary expenses 
 will be defrayed by this department. He can not receive any 
 public character, as we have a minister on the spot ; but the 
 President's great desire to do all that can be done leads him to 
 say that if you think a private agency might be useful, he wish- 
 es it to be instituted, and that you would select such person as 
 you deem the fittest for such duty. He the more readily sub- 
 mits this part of the case to your discretion, as, before this com- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 321 
 
 munication shall reach New Orleans, you may very probably 
 be in possession of much more information than has as yet 
 reached us ; and there are likely also to be many citizens of 
 New Orleans who are acquainted at Mexico. 
 
 As this agent will have no public character, he can only act 
 under direction of the American minister, to whom he will re- 
 port himself on his arrival. And the main advantage to be ex- 
 pected from such agency is this : that a person of respectabili- 
 ty and address, well acquainted with Mexico, its manners and 
 language, and perhaps with its present authorities, and ac- 
 quainted, also, with the character, family, and connections of 
 Coombs, Kendall, and other American citizens who may be in 
 like condition, may, by unofficial means and personal efforts, 
 co-operate usefully with Mr. Ellis. If you think it advisable, 
 on the whole, that such agent be employed, you will give a 
 copy of this letter as his instructions. 
 
 The collector of New Orleans will have instructions to con- 
 vey Mr. M'Rae to the fittest port in Mexico, by the revenue 
 cutter or other the most prompt mode ; and if you should think it 
 useful that such private agent as is above mentioned should pro- 
 ceed to Mexico, he may use the same conveyance. You will 
 see by the inclosed that, although not applied to by his friends, 
 Mr. Kendall's case has not been overlooked ; and it is the Pres- 
 ident's wish, that if any other American citizen, innocently in 
 company with the expedition, should have fallen into the hands 
 of the Mexicans, an equal interference may be made in his be- 
 half. I am, &c., Daniel Webster. 
 
 Balie Peyton, Esq., United States District Attorney, Nexo Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, April 15, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have to address you upon the subject of those citi- 
 zens of the United States who were captured with the Texan 
 expedition to Santa Fe, and who, as is believed, were not par- 
 ties to that expedition, so far as it was military and hostile to 
 Mexico, if, in fact, a hostile invasion of Mexico was among its 
 purposes, but accompanied it only as traders, tourists, travelers, 
 men of letters, or in other characters and capacities, showing 
 them to be non-combatants ; but who, nevertheless, were taken 
 and held as prisoners, compelled to undergo incredible hard- 
 ships in a winter's march of two thousand miles, and at its end 
 subjected to almost every conceivable degree of indignity and 
 suffering. 
 
 By the law and practice of civilized nations, enemies' sub- 
 jects taken in arms may be made prisoners of war ; but every 
 person found in the train of an army is not to be considered as, 
 therefore, a belligerent or an enemy. In all wars, and in ail 
 
 X 
 
382 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 countries, multitudes of persons follow the march of armies, for 
 the purpose of traffic or from motives of curiosity, or the influ- 
 ence of other causes, who neitiier expect to be nor reasonably 
 can be considered belligerents. Whoever, in the Texan expe- 
 dition to Santa Fe, was commissioned or enrolled for the mil- 
 itary service of Texas, or, being armed, was in the pay of that 
 government, and engaged in an expedition hostile to Mexico, 
 may be considered as her enemy, and might lawfully, therefore, 
 be detained as prisoner of war. This is not to be doubted ; 
 and, by the general practice of modern nations, it is true that 
 the fact of having been found in arms with others admitted to 
 be armed for belligerent purposes raises a presumption of hos- 
 tile character. In many cases, and especially in regard to 
 European wars in modern times, it might be difficult to repel 
 the force of this presumption. It is still, however, but a pre- 
 sumption ; because it is nevertheless true that a man may be 
 found in arms with no hostile intentions. He may have assum- 
 ed arms for other purposes, and may assert a pacific charac- 
 ter, with which the fact of his being more or less armed would 
 be entirely consistent. In former and less civilized ages, cases 
 of this sort existed, without number, in European society. 
 When the peace of communities was less firmly established by 
 efficient laws, and when, therefore, men often traveled armed 
 for their own defense, or when individuals, being armed accord- 
 ing to the fashion of the age, yet often journeyed under the 
 protection of military escorts or bodies of soldiers, the posses- 
 sion of arms was no evidence of hostile character, circumstan- 
 ces of the times sufficiently explaining such appearances, con- 
 sistently with pacific intentions. And circumstances of the 
 country may repel the presumption of hostility as well as cir- 
 cumstances of the times, or the manners of a particular age. 
 The Texan expedition to Santa Fe, in traversing the vast 
 plains between the place from which it set out and that point, 
 was to pass through a region which no one thinks of entering 
 and crossing without arms, for whatever purpose or with what- 
 ever intent he may undertake such enterprise. If he be a hunt- 
 er, he is armed ; if a trader, he is armed ; and, usually, traders 
 go in considerable bodies, that they may be the better able to 
 defend themselves against the roaming savage tribes so con- 
 stantly met with in those extensive plains. It is not uncommon, 
 indeed, that, for their better defense, companies of traders re- 
 tain the service of men at arms, who maintain military order 
 and array along the line of their march. When such bodies 
 are met with in countries usually traversed by them, no infer- 
 ence arises, from the circumstance of their being armed, of any 
 intention, on their part, of using such arms for any purpose 
 but that of defense. If tourists, or persons wearing any other 
 
WPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 323^ 
 
 similar but equally pacific character, set forth on such a jour- 
 ney, they are still armed ; armed for subsistence as well as for 
 defense. The fact, therefore, of being found in such a country 
 with arms does not prove a belligerent or hostile character, 
 since nobody, however peaceable, is found there without arms. 
 If, therefore, individuals armed only according to the custom 
 of the country, but having no hostile purposes of their own, and 
 free from all military authority or employment, fall in with or 
 follow the march of troops proceeding toward a point of at- 
 tack, these individuals are not combatants, and not subject to 
 be taken and treated as prisoners. These considerations may 
 be applied to those citizens of the United States for whose re- 
 lease from imprisonment the interposition of this government 
 has been requested. One of those citizens is George Wilkins 
 Kendall. Mr. Kendall is a man of letters, a highly respectable 
 citizen of New Orleans, and was the editor of a literary publi- 
 cation carried on at that place. He was fond of travel at those 
 seasons of the year when most persons who are able leave the 
 city; and having, in all previous tours, made himself acquaint- 
 ed with all parts of his own country, and learning, early in the 
 spring of 1841, that a trading expedition would start from Tex- 
 as to Santa Fe about the first of May, he resolved on joining it, 
 as a pleasure excursion of a novel and interesting character. 
 His departure and his intentions were publicly announced in 
 the paper with which he was concerned at the time of his set- 
 ting forth. His object was declared to be to take a personal 
 glance over this broad expanse of country, and, thus spending 
 the summer, to return either by Missouri or by the way of Low- 
 er Mexico, by the usual time when citizens return to New Or- 
 leans for the fall business. The expedition, though having a 
 military equipment, was represented to him as entirely com- 
 mercial in its character, its object being, as was asserted, to 
 turn the rich Chihuahua trade into the Texan channel. Mr. 
 Kendall was no soldier, no revolutionary adventurer, but a 
 man of respectable connections, engaged in prosperous busi- 
 ness, and fond of the enjoyments of intellectual and social life. 
 It is hardly possible that such a gentleman should have left such 
 a condition to form part of a military expedition, subjecting 
 himself to all its hazards and all its results, in an attempt to 
 subjugate by force of arms a Mexican province five hundred 
 or a thousand miles from his home and his connections. 
 
 Before leaving New Orleans, he obtained a passport from 
 the Mexican vice consul at that city. This fact, although it 
 appears to have been denied, is proved by the testimony of 
 Mr. Falconer and Mr. Van Ness. They can hardly be mis- 
 taken ; but further evidence on this point may probably be in 
 your possession before you receive this dispatch. He armed 
 
324 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 himself before leaving home, as any other person, of however 
 pacific character, would arm himself for such a tour. Such 
 was Mr. Kendall's character, such his objects, and such the 
 circumstances under which he joined the ill-fated expedition. 
 
 Several other prisoners appear, from the circumstances, to 
 have been as little engaged in any hostile design as Mr. Ken- 
 dall. John Tompkins is represented to be a citizen of the Unit- 
 ed States, from Greene county, Illinois, where his family, con- 
 sisting of a wife and five children, still reside. He is a saddler 
 by trade, but left the United States with merchandise for Tex- 
 as just in time to join the expedition to Santa Fe. His health 
 was delicate, and his object was to improve it, to dispose of 
 his merchandise for defraying his expenses, and to return to the 
 place of his abode by the way of St. Louis. 
 
 David Snively is a man somewhat advanced in life, who be- 
 longs to the State of Ohio, where he has a wife and several 
 children. He went with the expedition as a trader, and had a 
 considerable amount of merchandise with him. 
 
 H. R. Buchanan, of Tennessee, went also as a trader, and took 
 with him property of value, which was taken from him. He 
 had arrived in Texas only a month before the expedition set out, 
 and accompanied it, with his own pack mules and a servant. 
 
 L. B. Sheldon is a member of the Mississippi bar, who ac- 
 companied the expedition as a traveler only. He had with 
 him a small amount in merchandise, from the sale of which he 
 expected to defray his traveling expenses. He had gone to 
 Texas in March, 1841, on business which he presumed would 
 not detain him longer than two months ; but he subsequently 
 resolved to join the expedition for the purpose above mentioned. 
 
 Two persons by the name of Howard were among the cap- 
 tives, natives of and residents in this city or its neighborhood. 
 They are represented as traders, who had with them merchan- 
 dise to the amount of eight or ten thousand dollars. 
 
 Thomas S. Terry, of Hartford, in Connecticut, is believed to 
 have gone to Texas in December, 1840, and, being a trader, 
 joined the expedition as an escort, for protection against the 
 Indians or other freebooters. He did not intend to return to 
 Texas, but to trade at Santa Fe, and between that place and 
 St. Louis. The circumstances of others who have applied for 
 the interposition of this government are less precisely known. 
 Whatever evidence may be in this department, or shall be re- 
 ceived hereafter, respecting them, will be forwarded to you, 
 
 A demand for Mr. Kendall's release from confinement, as 
 well as that of others under equally innocent circumstances, 
 has been made by the minister of the United States at Mexico, 
 and you will see the correspondence between that minister and 
 the Mexican Secretary of State. That correspondence, as 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS, 325 
 
 you will observe, is principally confined to the case of Mr. 
 Kendall. 
 
 The Mexican Secretary objects to his release from confine- 
 ment, because he was united with the invading enemies of that 
 country, in whose company he was taken, and under whose 
 protection he was journeying ; and because the entrance of 
 foreigners into Mexico by the Texan frontier, being prohibited 
 by a Mexican law, even when such foreigners might be trav- 
 eling alone, the prohibition ought to be more strict and severe 
 in the case of their entering by the side of soldiers coming to 
 invade the country. Because, also, Mr. Kendall was an agent 
 of the Texans, or, at least, a member of the expedition to New 
 Mexico ; in proof of which, a passage, in the following words, 
 is quoted from the New Orleans Picayune of the 21st of De- 
 cember last: "A Captain Lewis was one of the commission- 
 ers, and the other was Mr. Kendall, editor of the Picayune." 
 
 The Secretary proceeds to assert that those who join invad- 
 ers ought to be involved in their fate in respect to such warlike 
 measures as it may be necessary to take to repel such invaders ; 
 and that, in affairs of this nature, all the presumptions are against 
 him who associates himself with an enemy, in whose company 
 he is made a prisoner, whatever his intentions may have been. 
 The Secretary states, further, that if Mr. Kendall was igno- 
 rant of the Mexican law referred to, it is well known not to be 
 allowable to plead ignorance of any law which had properly 
 been made public. But, supposing that he was ignorant of the 
 law, the circumstances of his case, he argues, were such that 
 its text could not be literally followed ; for the penalty men- 
 tioned was intended to apply to one or two persons only, and 
 those without hostile accompaniments, who might present them- 
 selves on the frontier; and that the law did not deprive the 
 Mexican government of the right of self-preservation, a right 
 derived from the law of nature and nations. The Secretary 
 then alludes to documents in the possession of his government, 
 which, he says, place Mr. Kendall's conduct in a more serious 
 light; but those documents are neither produced nor described. 
 The Secretary denies that the paragraph quoted from the news- 
 paper was the ground of the proceeding of his government; 
 but says that, proceeding as the paragraph did from Mr. Ken- 
 dall's partners in business, it might be considered as impartial, 
 and served to strengthen the presumptions against him. He 
 denies that it is the duty of his government to allow Mr. Ken- 
 dall the benefit of the context of the article from which the par- 
 agraph supposed to inculpate him had been quoted, although 
 the extract may be used against him. He endeavors to prove 
 himself correct in calling Mr. Kendall a commissioner of the 
 Texans, and proceeds to define what he understands a com- 
 
326 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 missioner to be. If Mr. Kendall had a passport, that, he ad- 
 mits, would be prima facie evidence in his favor ; and that, if 
 it should be ascertained that he had an unconditional passport, 
 which had been destroyed by an officer of the Mexican army, 
 he should be set at liberty, and that measures had been taken 
 to ascertain these facts. 
 
 These reasons appear to be either unfounded in fact, or, if 
 true, to furnish no sufficient ground for regarding Mr. Kendall 
 as a belligerent enemy, or for declining to comply with the 
 demand made by this government in his behalf. In the first 
 place, it is said he was united with the invading enemies of the 
 country, in whose company he was taken, and under whose 
 protection he was journeying. 
 
 That he traveled with the Texans, is true ; but, as has been 
 already said, that fact alone does not constitute him a combat- 
 ant. It may furnish, in the first instance, a presumption that 
 he was so ; but such a presumption may be repelled, and is 
 fully repelled, by the circumstances of the case. There would 
 be no meaning in that well-settled principle of the law of na- 
 tions which exempts men of letters and other classes of non- 
 combatants from the liability of being made prisoners of war, 
 if it were an answer to every claim for such exemption to say 
 that the person making it was united with a military force, or 
 journeying under its protection. As to the assertion that it is 
 against the law of Mexico for foreigners to pass into it, across 
 the line of Texas, it is with no little surprise that the Mexican 
 Secretary of State is found to assign this reason for making 
 Mr. Kendall a prisoner. The direction of that law only is to 
 prohibit the traveler's entrance, or to send him back if he does 
 enter. It has no penalty of chains, dungeons, or condemnation 
 to tbe public works. And the Mexican Secretary himself suf- 
 ficiently shows that this law has no application to the case, be- 
 cause, he says, it was intended only for the case of one, two, 
 or a few individuals. Having quoted this law, and then find- 
 ing that, in its just import, it furnished no authority for the 
 treatment which these citizens of the United States had receiv- 
 ed, the Mexican Secretary appears to treat the subject as if 
 this law had been set up to assist their claim for liberation ; 
 while, in truth, all that Mr. Ellis did, in this respect, was to 
 say, that if that law governed the case, then no penalty, no 
 punishment, and no treatment of the prisoners could be justi- 
 fied but such as had been prescribed by that law ; and there- 
 upon the Secretary adroitly denied that the law applies to the 
 case at all. In this he is no doubt quite right. 
 
 As to the assertion that Mr. Kendall was an agent of the 
 Texans, or a member, properly speaking, of the expedition, 
 and the reference, in proof of this assertion, to the article in 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 327 
 
 the newspaper with which he was connected, all this was 
 founded in misconstruction, as you will see, of the true import 
 of the article itself, even if a newspaper paragraph were fit to 
 be regarded in such a case. In the article, Mr. Kendall had 
 been called an " avant-courier," merely to signify that he went 
 forward, in approaching Santa Fe, in advance of the rest of 
 the party. If others went forward for other purposes, he might 
 still, in pursuance of his own objects, go with them. But Mr. 
 Kendall, not being responsible for this article, or shown to have 
 had any knowledge of it, it can not be of the least force against 
 him, whatever may be its import. 
 
 The Secretary says, finally, that being found in company 
 with an enemy raises a presumption against the party ; but 
 the Secretary does not say that this presumption may not be 
 rebutted. Why, indeed, does he call it a presumption, unless 
 he means that it is a thing calling lor explanation, and which 
 may be explained ? It is explained, fully and completely. Mr. 
 Kendall, as we think, brings himself clearly within the exemp- 
 tion of the law of nations, as practiced in modern times ; and 
 to insist on presumptions, and to give them the force of conclu- 
 sive proofs, in defiance of all repelling proofs, is to render that 
 law, in its application to cases of this kind, null and void. If 
 it be admitted th^t, prima facie, the presumption is against Mr. 
 Kendall, has he not repelled it ? He has made an effort to do 
 so ; but, instead of meeting this effort by argument, and the 
 proofs which support it by opposite proofs, the Secretary ap- 
 pears to content himself with stating that such is the legal pre- 
 sumption ; thus wholly avoiding the true point of the case. 
 This government thinks that the facts stated and proved show 
 Mr. Kendall to have been no party to the military expedition 
 of Texas ; to have had no hostile intention against Mexico ; to 
 have entered her territory for no purpose of assisting to make 
 war on her citizens, dismember her provinces, or overturn her 
 government. 
 
 It does not very satisfactorily appear, from any correspond- 
 ence or information now in this department, in what light Mex- 
 ico looks upon those persons made prisoners at Santa Fe, whom 
 she has a right to consider as engaged in the service of Texas, 
 and therefore as her enemies. We must presume that she 
 means to regard them as prisoners of war. There is a possi- 
 bility, however, that a different mode of considering them may 
 be adopted, and that they may be thought to be amenable to 
 the municipal laws of Mexico. Any proceeding founded on 
 this idea would undoubtedly be attended with the most serious 
 consequences. It is now several years since the independence 
 of Texas, as a separate government, has been acknowledged 
 by the United States, and she has since been recognized in that 
 
328 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 character by several of the most considerable powers of Eu- 
 rope. The war between her and Mexico, which has continued 
 so long, and with such success that for a long time there has 
 been no hostile foot in Texas, is a public war, and as such it 
 has been and will be regarded by this government. It is not 
 now an outbreak of rebellion, a fresh insurrection, the parties 
 to which may be treated as rebels. The contest, supposed, in- 
 deed, to have been substantially ended, has at least advanced 
 far beyond that point. It is a public war, and persons captur- 
 ed in the course of it, who are to be detained at all, are to be 
 detained as prisoners of war, and not otherwise. 
 
 It is true that the independence of Texas has not been recog- 
 nized by Mexico. It is equally true that the independence of 
 Mexico has only been recently recognized by Spain ; but the 
 United States having acknowledged both the independence of 
 Mexico before Spain acknowledged it, and the independence 
 of Texas, although Mexico has not yet acknowledged it, stands 
 in the same relation toward both those governments, and is as 
 much bound to protect its citizens in a proper intercourse with 
 Texas, against injuries by the government of Mexico, as it 
 would have been to protect such citizens in a like intercourse 
 with Mexico against injuries by Spain. The period which has 
 elapsed since Texas threw off the authority of Mexico is near- 
 ly as long as the whole duration of the Revolutionary war of 
 the United States. No effort for the subjugation of Texas has 
 been made by Mexico, from the time of the battle of San Ja- 
 cinto, on the 21st day of April, 1830, until the commencement 
 of the present year, and during all this period Texas has 
 maintained an independent government, carried on commerce, 
 and made treaties with nations in both hemispheres, and kept 
 aloof all attempts at invading her territory. If, under these 
 circumstances, any citizen of the United States, in whose be- 
 half this government has a right on any account or to any extent 
 to interfere, should, on a charge of having been found with an 
 armed Texan force acting in hostility to Mexico, be brought 
 to trial and punished as for a violation of the municipal laws 
 of Mexico, or as being her subject, engaged in rebellion, after 
 his release has been demanded by this government, consequen- 
 ces of the most serious character would certainly ensue. You 
 will, therefore, not fail, should any indication render it neces- 
 sary, to point out distinctly to the government of Mexico the 
 dangers, should the war between her and Texas continue, of 
 considering it, so far as citizens of the United States may be 
 concerned, in any other light than that of a public national 
 war, in the events and progress of which prisoners may be 
 made on both sides, and to whose condition the law and usa- 
 ges of nations respecting prisoners of war are justly applicable. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 329 
 
 And this makes it proper that I should draw your particular 
 attention to the manner in which the persons taken near Santa 
 Fe have been treated, as we are informed. 
 
 Mr, Kendall, and other persons with him, having been car- 
 ried to Santa Fe from the place of capture, were there depriv- 
 ed of their arms. To this there can be no objection, if we 
 consider them as prisoners of war, because prisoners of war 
 may be lawfully disarmed by the captor ; but they were also 
 despoiled, not only of every article of value about their per- 
 sons, but of their clothing also — their coats, their hats, their 
 shoes — things indispensable to the long march before them. 
 If these facts be not disproved, they constitute an outrage by 
 the local authorities of Mexico for which there can be no apol- 
 ogy. The privations and indignities to which they were sub- 
 jected, during their march of two thousand miles to the city 
 of Mexico, at the most inclement season of the year, were hor- 
 rible, and, if they were not well authenticated, it would have 
 been incredible that they should have been inflicted in this age, 
 and in a country calling itself Christian and civilized. During 
 many days they had no food, and on others only two ears of 
 corn were distributed to each man. To sustain life, therefore, 
 they were compelled to sell, on the way, the few remnants of 
 clothing which their captors had left them ; but, by seeking 
 thus to appease their hunger, they increased the misery which 
 they already endured from exposure to the cold. Most dread- 
 ful of all, however, several of them, disabled by sickness and 
 suffering from keeping up with the others, were deliberately 
 shot without any provocation. Those who survived to their 
 journey's end were, many of them, afflicted with loathsome dis- 
 ease ; and those whose health was not broken down have been 
 treated, not as the public law requires, but in a manner harsh 
 and vindictive, and with a degree of severity equal, at least, to 
 that usually inflicted by the municipal codes of most civilized 
 and Christian states upon the basest felons. Indeed, they ap- 
 pear to have been ranked with these ; being thrust into the 
 same dungeons with Mexican malefactors, chained to them in 
 pairs, and when allowed to see the light and breathe the air 
 of heaven, required, as a compensation therefor, to labor, be- 
 neatli the lash of a task-master, upon roads and public works 
 of that country. 
 
 The government of the United States has no inclination to 
 interfere in the war between Mexico and Texas, for the bene- 
 fit or protection of individuals, any further than its clear duties 
 require. But if citizens of the United States who have not re- 
 nounced, nor intended to renounce, their allegiance to their 
 own government, nor have entered into the military service of 
 any other government, have nevertheless been found so con- 
 
330 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 nected with armed enemies of Mexico as that they may be 
 lawfully captured and detained as prisoners of war, it is still 
 the duty of this government to take so far a concern in their 
 welfare as to see that, as prisoners of war, they are treated 
 according to the usage of modern times and civilized states. 
 
 Indeed, although the rights or the safety of none of their own 
 citizens were concerned, yet if, in a war waged between two 
 neighboring states, the killing, enslaving, or cruelly treating of 
 prisoners should be indulged, the United States would feel it to 
 be their duty, as well as their right, to remonstrate and to inter- 
 fere against such a departure from the principles of humanity 
 and civilization. These principles are common principles, es- 
 sential alike to the welfare of all nations, and in the preserva- 
 tion of which all nations have, therefore, rights and interests. 
 But their duty to interfere becomes imperative in cases affect- 
 ing their own citizens. 
 
 It is, therefore, that the government of the United States pro- 
 tests against the hardships and cruelties to which the Santa Fa 
 prisoners have been subjected. It protests against this treat- 
 ment in the name of humanity and the law of nations ; in the 
 name of all Christian states ; in the name of civilization and the 
 spirit of the age ; in the name of all republics ; in the name of 
 Liberty herself, enfeebled and dishonored by all cruelty and all 
 excess ; in the name of and for the honor of this whole hemi- 
 sphere. It protests emphatically and earnestly against practi- 
 ces belonging only to barbarous people in barbarous times. 
 
 By the well-established rules of national law, prisoners of 
 war are not to be treated harshly, unless personally guilty to- 
 ward him who has them in his power ; for he should remem- 
 ber that they are men, and unfortunate. 
 
 ' When an enemy is conquered, and submits, a great soul for- 
 gets all resentment, and is entirely filled with compassion for 
 him. This is the humane language of the law of nations ; and 
 this is the sentiment of high honor among men. The law of 
 war forbids the wounding, killing, impressment into the troops 
 of the country, or the enslaving or otherwise maltreating of 
 prisoners of ivar, unless they have been guilty of some grave 
 crime ; and from the obligation of this law no civilized state 
 can discharge itself 
 
 Every nation, on being received, at her own request, into the 
 circle of civilized governments, must understand that she not 
 only attains rights of sovereignty and the dignity of national 
 character, but that she binds herself also to the strict and faith- 
 ful observance of all those principles, laws, and usages which 
 have obtained currency among civilized states, and which have 
 for their object the mitigation of the miseries of war. 
 
 No community can be allowed to enjoy the benefit of na- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 331 
 
 tional character, in modern times, without submitting to all the 
 duties which that character imposes. A Christian people, who 
 exercise sovereign power, who make treaties, maintain diplo- 
 matic relations with other states, and who should yet refuse to 
 conduct its military operations according to the usages univers- 
 ally observed by such states, would present a character singu- 
 larly inconsistent and anomalous. 
 
 This government will not hastily suppose that the Mexican 
 republic will assume such a character. 
 
 There is yet another very important element arising out of 
 the facts of this case. 
 
 It is asserted and believed that the surrender of some of the 
 persons connected with the expedition was made upon specific 
 terms, which were immediately violated by the local Mexican 
 authorities. If there is one rule of the law of war more clear 
 and peremptory than another, it is that compacts between en- 
 emies, such as truces and capitulations, shall be faithfully ad- 
 hered to ; and their non-observance is denounced as being man- 
 ifestly at variance with the true interest and duty, not only of 
 the immediate parties, but of all mankind. Consequently, if the 
 surrender of the expedition, or any part of it, was conditional, 
 the benefit of those conditions must be insisted upon in favor 
 of Mr. Kendall. According to the statement of Messrs. Fal- 
 coner and Van Ness, Mr. Kendall proceeded two hundred miles 
 in advance of the main body, and was taken with his compan- 
 ions while they were displaying a flag of truce ; and the per- 
 sons who took them gave assurances that they should not be 
 held as prisoners of war. 
 
 Here, then, was a special immunity promised, but afterward 
 notoriously withheld, as we are bound to believe in the present 
 state of our information upon the subject. If, therefore, this 
 government were not entitled to demand Mr. Kendall's release 
 on the grounds of his having been a non-combatant and a neu- 
 tral, it might require the government of Mexico to take care 
 that the stipulation of its authorized agents to that effect be 
 scrupulously fulfilled, and that, on this account, those to whom 
 the promise was made should be immediately released, accord- 
 ing to that promise. 
 
 In conclusion, I am directed by the President of the United 
 States now to instruct you that, on the receipt of this dispatch, 
 you inquire carefully and minutely into the circumstances of 
 all those persons who, having been taken near Santa Fe, and 
 having claimed the interposition of this government, are still 
 held as prisoners in Mexico, and you will demand of the Mex- 
 ican government the release of such of them as appear to have 
 been innocent traders, travelers, invalids, men of letters, or for 
 any other reasons justly esteemed non-combatants, being citi- 
 
332 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 1 
 
 zens of the United States. To this end it may be proper to direct 
 the consul to proceed to the places where any of them may be 
 confined, and to take their statements under oath, as also the 
 statements of other persons to whom they may respectively re- 
 fer. If the Mexican government deny facts upon which any 
 of the parties claim their release, and desire time for further in- 
 vestigation of their respective cases, or any of them, proper 
 and suitable time must be allowed ; but if any of the persons 
 described in the next preceding paragraph, and for whose re- 
 lease you shall have made a demand, shall still be detained, 
 for the purpose of further inquiry or otherwise, you will then 
 explicitly demand of the Mexican government that they be 
 treated henceforward with all the lenity which, in the most fa- 
 vorable cases, belongs to the rights of prisoners of war ; that 
 they be not confined in loathsome dungeons, with malefactors 
 and persons diseased ; that they be not chained, or subjected 
 to ignominy, or to any particular rigor in their detention ; that 
 they be not obliged to labor on the public works, or put to any 
 other hardship. You will state to the Mexican government 
 that the government of the United States entertains a convic- 
 tion that these persons ought to be set at liberty without de- 
 lay; that it will feel great dissatisfaction if it shall still learn 
 that Mr. Kendall, whose case has already been made the sub- 
 ject of an express demand, and others of equal claims to liber- 
 ation, be not set at liberty at the time when you receive this 
 dispatch ; but that, if the government of Mexico insists upon 
 detaining any of them for further inquiry, it is due to the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, to its desire to preserve peace 
 and harmony with Mexico, and to justice and humanity, that, 
 while detained, these persons should enjoy, to the fullest extent, 
 the rights of prisoners of war ; and that it expects that a de- 
 mand so just and reasonable, a demand respectfully made by 
 one friendly state to another, will meet with immediate com- 
 pliance. Having made this demand, you will wait for an an- 
 swer ; and if within ten days you shall not receive assurances 
 that all of the persons above mentioned, who may still be de- 
 tained, will be thenceforward treated in the manner which has 
 now been insisted upon, you will hold no further official inter- 
 course with the government of Mexico until you shall receive 
 further directions from your own government. You will there- 
 upon communicate with this department, detaining for that pur- 
 pose the messenger who carries this. In your communication 
 you will state, as fully and as accurately as possible, the cir- 
 cumstances of each man's case, as they may appear by all the 
 evidence which at that time may be possessed by the legation. 
 In making your demand for the better treatment of the pris- 
 oners, you will take especial care not to abandon or weaken 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 333 
 
 the claim for their release, nothing more being intended in that 
 respect than tliat proper time should be allowed to the gov- 
 ernment of Mexico to make such further inquiries as may be 
 necessary. 
 
 Your predecessor has already been directed that, if any of 
 the persons suffer for the want of the common necessaries of 
 life, he should provide for such wants until otherwise supplied: 
 a direction which you will also observe. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Waddy Thompson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- ? 
 potentiary of the United States to the Mexican Republic. 5 
 
 CAPTAIN JONES'S ATTACK ON MONTEREY. 
 
 Message from the President of the United States, in reply to the 
 Resolution of the House of Representatives of the 2d of Febru- 
 ary, calling for Information in Relation to the taking Posses- 
 sion of Monterey by Commodore Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, 
 February 22, 1843. 
 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 
 A resolution has been communicated to me, which was 
 adopted by the House of Representatives on the 2d instant, in 
 the following terms : 
 
 " Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- 
 quested to inform this House by what authority and under 
 whose instructions Captain Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, com- 
 mander of the squadron of the United States in the Pacific 
 Ocean, did, on or about the 19th of October last, invade in war- 
 like array the territories of the Mexican Republic, take posses- 
 sion of the town of Monterey, and declare himself the com- 
 mander of the naval and military expedition for the occupation 
 of the Californias. 
 
 " Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- 
 quested to communicate to this House copies of all the instruc- 
 tions given by him, or under his authority, to the said Captain 
 Jones, from the time of his appointment to the command of the 
 said squadron ; also, copies of all communications received 
 from him relating to his expedition for the occupation of the 
 Californias ; and also to inform this House whether orders 
 have been dispatched to the said Captain Jones recalling him 
 from his command." 
 
 The proceeding of Captain Jones, in taking possession of the 
 town of Monterey, in the possessions of Mexico, was entirely 
 of his own authority, and not in consequence of any orders or 
 instructions of any kind given to him by the government of the 
 United States. For that proceeding he has been recalled, and 
 
334 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the letter recalling him will be found among the papers here- 
 with communicated. 
 
 The resolution of the House of Representatives asks for 
 "copies of all the instructions given to Captain Jones, from the 
 time of his appointment to the command of the said squadron ; 
 also, copies of all communications received from him relating 
 to his expedition for the occupation of the Californias," without 
 confining the request to such instructions and correspondence 
 as relate to the transactions at Monterey, and without the usual 
 reservation of such portions of the instructions or correspond- 
 ence as, in the President's judgment, could not be made public 
 without prejudice or danger to the public interests. 
 
 It may well be supposed that cases may arise, even in time 
 of peace, in which it would be highly injurious to the country 
 to make public, at a particular moment, the instructions under 
 which a commander may be acting on a distant and foreign 
 service. In such a case, should it arise, and in all similar cases, 
 the discretion of the executive can not be controlled by the re- 
 quest of either House of Congress for the communication of pa- 
 pers. The duties which the Constitution and the laws devolve 
 on the President must be performed by him under his official 
 responsibility ; and he is not at liberty to disregard high inter- 
 ests or thwart important public objects by untimely publica- 
 tions, made against his own judgment, by whomsoever such 
 publications may be requested. In the present case, not seeing 
 that any injury is likely to arise from so doing, I have directed 
 copies of all the papers asked for to be communicated. And 
 I avail myself of the opportunity of transmitting, also, copies of 
 sundry letters, as noted below. John Tyler. 
 
 Washington, February 18, 1843. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 17, 1843. 
 
 Sir, — Your dispatches to No. — , inclusive, and your private 
 letter of the 15th ultimo, have been received. 
 
 Although the department is without official intelligence of 
 the seizure of Monterey by Commodore Jones, in command of 
 the United States squadron in the Pacific, it is deemed proper 
 that no time should be lost in acquainting the Mexican govern- 
 ment that the transaction was entirely unauthorized. It^ there- 
 fore, the account of that event should prove to be authentic, 
 you will take occasion to inform the Minister for Foreign Af- 
 fairs orally that Commodore Jones had no warrant from this 
 government for the proceeding, and that the President exceed- 
 ingly regrets its occurrence. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, Daniel Webster. 
 
 Waddy Thompson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Pleriipotentiary of the Uiiited States, Mexico. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPEKS. 335 
 
 M7'. Webster to General Almonte. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, Jannary 21, 1843. 
 
 The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
 has the honor to communicate to General Almonte, envoy ex- 
 traordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Mexican Repub- 
 lic, a copy of an instruction which has been addressed by this 
 department to the minister of the United States at Mexico, 
 upon the subject of the reported seiz.ure of Monterey, on the 
 Mexican coast, by Commodore Jones, in command of the Unit- 
 ed States squadron in the Pacific. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of the occasion to offer Gen- 
 eral Almonte renewed assurances of his very distinguished con- 
 sideration. Daniel Webster. 
 General Don J. N. Almonte, &c. 
 
 General Almonte to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 Mexican Legation, Washington, January '2.A, 1843. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of the Mexican Republic near the government of the 
 United States of America, has the honor to acknowledge the 
 receipt of the note which the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary 
 of State, was pleased to address to him on the 21st instant, in- 
 closing a copy of the instructions addressed by him, on the 17th 
 instant, to Mr. Waddy Thompson, the American minister at 
 Mexico, respecting the capture of Monterey, in Upper Califor- 
 nia, by Commodore Jones. 
 
 The undersigned expected no less from the sense of justice 
 of the Hon. Mr. Webster's government ; he, however, regrets to 
 observe that, in the instructions given to the aforesaid Mr. 
 Waddy Thompson, minister of the United States at Mexico, 
 while it is denied that the proceedings of Commodore Jones 
 were authorized, the declaration is omitted that he will be ex- 
 emplarily punished for the extraordinary act of excess [inau- 
 dito atentaclo] committed by him, in violating the faith of treat- 
 ies, and abusing the hospitality with which the peaceful in- 
 habitants of Monterey were preparing to receive him. The 
 undersigned will, nevertheless, without loss of time, communi- 
 cate to his government the note from the Hon. Mr. Webster, 
 and the accompanying copy of the instructions ; but he will, in 
 the mean time, inform the Secretary of State that he has just 
 received communications and instructions from his Excellency 
 the Minister of Foreign Relations of Mexico, wherein he is di- 
 i-ected to press for the immediate satisfaction and indemnifica- 
 tion which his government expects to receive from this republic. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Webster will have already been informed of the 
 tenor of the communication addressed to Mr. Waddy Thomp- 
 
336 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 son, on the 19th of December last, by the Mexican government ; 
 and the undersigned doubts not, from the good faith of the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, that, in reparation of the scandal- 
 ous infraction of the treaty of friendship, commerce, and naviga- 
 tion existing between the tw^o repubUcs, committed by one of its 
 officers who has invoked its name, the said officer will be exem- 
 plarily punished, as a warning to other chiefs, who, incited by 
 his example, might be disposed to commit excesses of equal 
 enormity, if they could be pardoned by their own government. 
 The delinquency of Commodore Jones is so serious, so obvious, 
 and so notorious, that it would be superfluous to particularize 
 its enormities. 
 
 The undersigned trusts that the government of the United 
 States will repair the losses and injuries inflicted by the said 
 Commodore Jones, as well on the inhabitants of Monterey as 
 on the Mexican Republic. This is an act of rigorous justice, 
 which Mexico has a right to expect, and which it is confident 
 of obtaining if, as she believes, and as the Hon. Mr. Webster 
 assures, her government is a government of law. 
 
 The undersigned, being desirous for the removal of every 
 obstacle to the intimacy of the relations of friendship and good 
 understanding which should subsist between two friendly na- 
 tions, bound by solemn treaties, and anticipating a happy result 
 to their communications with each other (as he has no grounds 
 for believing the contrary), requests the Hon. Mr. Webster, 
 Secretary of State, to have the kindness to submit the contents 
 of this note to his Excellency the President, and to communicate 
 to him the resolution of his excellency as soon as possible, in 
 order that he may avail himself of the departure of a messen- 
 ger, whom the undersigned proposes to dispatch to Mexico, 
 and who will quit this city on the 27th instant. 
 
 The undersigned embraces the opportunity here afforded to 
 repeat to the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, the as- 
 surances of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 J. N. Almonte. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Webster to General Almonte. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, January 30, 1843. 
 
 The undersigned. Secretary of State of the United States, 
 has had the honor to receive the note of the 24th instant of 
 General Almonte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of the Mexican Republic. 
 
 General Almonte has already been made acquainted with 
 the instruction addressed from this department, on the 17th in- 
 stant, to the minister of the United States at Mexico, respect- 
 ing the transaction at Monterey, in Upper California, in which 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 337 
 
 Commodore Jones was concerned ; but General Almonte now 
 expresses his regret that he sees in that instruction no decla- 
 ration that Commodore Jones will be exemplarily punished for 
 the extraordinary act of excess committed by him, in violation 
 of the faith of treaties, and in abuse of the hospitality with 
 which the peaceable inhabitants of Monterey were prepared to 
 receive him. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to inform General Almonte, 
 that, before the receipt of his note, the President had given di- 
 rections for the adoption of such a course of proceeding toward 
 Commodore Jones as, in his opinion, was due to the circumstan- 
 ces of the case, to the preservation of the principle and prac- 
 tice of absolute and entire abstinence, on the part of military 
 power, from all aggression in time of peace, and especially due 
 to the friendly relations at the present time happily subsisting 
 between the United States and Mexico. 
 
 But General Almonte and his government must see that 
 Conmiodore Jones intended no indignity to the government of 
 Mexico, nor any thing unlawful toward her citizens. Unfortu- 
 nately, he supposed, as he asserts, that a state of war actually 
 existed, at the time, between the two countries. If this suppo- 
 sition had been well founded, all that he did would have been 
 justifiable ; so that, whatever of imprudence or impropriety he 
 may be chargeable with, there is nothing to show that he in- 
 tended any affront to the honor of the Mexican government, or 
 to violate the relations of peace. 
 
 General Almonte is aware of some of the circumstances in 
 which this belief of the actual existence of a state of hostilities 
 probably might have had its origin. It is not deemed necessa- 
 ry now to advert to those circumstances, nor is it at present 
 known to the government of the United States what other 
 causes may have existed to strengthen this belief, or to make 
 it general along the western shore of this Continent. In the 
 clearly manifest absence of all illegal and improper intent^ 
 some allowance may be pi*operly extended toward acts of in- 
 discretion in a quarter so very remote, and in which correct 
 information of distant events is not soon or easily obtained. 
 
 If, in this transaction, citizens of Mexico have received any 
 injury in their persons or property, the government of the Unit- 
 ed States will undoubtedly feel itself bound to make ample rep- 
 aration ; and the representations of General Almonte on that 
 subject will receive the most respectful and immediate consid- 
 eration. 
 
 Happily, no lives were lost ; nor is it understood that any 
 considerable injury was suffered by any one. 
 
 The undersigned is directed by the President to assure Gen- 
 eral Almonte and his government that the government of the 
 
ass DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 United States will at all times be among the last to authorize 
 or justify any aggression on the territory of a nation with whom 
 it is at peace, or any indignity to its government. Sensibly 
 alive to any indignity, if offered to itself, it is equally resolved 
 to give no such cause of offense to its neighbors. And the un- 
 dersigned is directed to assure General Almonte and his gov- 
 ernment of the pain and the surprise which the President expe- 
 rienced on receiving information of this transaction. Under 
 these assurances, the President hopes that it may pass away 
 without leaving in the mind of the government of Mexico any 
 other feeling than that in which the government of the United 
 States entirely partakes : a feeling of deep regret at what has 
 happened, and a conviction that no such unfortunate and unau- 
 thorized occurrence ought in any degree to impair the amica- 
 ble relations subsisting between the two countries, so evidently 
 to the advantage of both. 
 
 The undersigned has been made acquainted with the commu- 
 nication addressed by the Mexican Secretary of State to the 
 minister of the United States at Mexico, and with the answer 
 of the latter gentleman to that communication. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer Gen- 
 eral Almonte renewed assurances of his most distinguished con- 
 sideration. Daniel Webster. 
 
 General Don J. N. Almonte, &c. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 3^ 
 
 RELATIONS WITH SPAIN. 
 
 SCHOONER "AMISTAD." 
 
 Message from the President of the United States, transmitting 
 sundry Letters between the Department of State and the Chev- 
 alier d^Argdiz, on the Subject of the Schooner ^^ Amistad,^' 
 February 27 ih, 1842. 
 
 To the House of Representatives : 
 
 I TRANSMIT to Congress sundry letters which have passed 
 between the Department of State and the Chevalier d'Argaiz, 
 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Spain near 
 the government of the United States, on the subject of the 
 schooner "Amistad," since the last communication of papers 
 connected with that case. This correspondence will show the 
 general grounds on which the Spanish minister expresses dis- 
 satisfaction with the decision of the Supreme Court in that case, 
 and the answers which have been made to his complaints by 
 the Department of State. 
 
 In laying these papers before Congress, I think it proper to 
 observe that the allowance of salvage on the cargo does not 
 appear to have been a subject of discussion in the Supreme 
 Court. Salvage had been denied in the court below, and from 
 that part of the decree no appeal had been claimed. 
 
 The 9th article of the treaty between the United States and 
 Spain provides that " all ships and merchandise, of what nature 
 soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates 
 or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of 
 either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers 
 of that port, in order to be taken care of, and restored entire 
 to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall 
 be made concerning the property thereof." The case of the 
 "Amistad," as was decided by the court, was not a case of 
 piracy, and therefore not within the terms of the treaty. Yet 
 it was a case in which the authority of the master, officers, and 
 Crew of the vessel had been divested by force, and in that con- 
 dition the vessel, having been found on the coast, was brought 
 into a port of the United States ; and it may deserve consider- 
 ation that the salvors in this case were tho officers and seamen 
 of a public ship. 
 
 It is left to Congress to consider, under these circumstances, 
 whether, although, in strictness, salvage may have been lawfully 
 due, it might not yet be wise to make provision to refund it, as 
 a proof of the entire good faith of the government, and of its 
 
340 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 disposition to fulfill all its treaty stipulations, to their full extent, 
 under a fair and liberal construction. John Tyler. 
 
 Washington, February 27, 1843. 
 
 The Chevalier d^Argan to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 Washington, April 5, 1841. 
 
 The Chevalier d'Argaiz had the honor to receive, with the 
 Secretary of State's note of the 3d instant, copies of two letters 
 received at his department relative to the slave Antonio. They 
 contain some inaccuracies, which will not, however, be indica- 
 ted, as they are of no importance. 
 
 The late Secretary of »State, on learning the decision of the 
 District Court of Connecticut, informed the Chevalier d'Argaiz 
 that the slave Antonio was at his disposal, and the Chevalier 
 d'Argaiz, in consequence, determined to bring him to his own 
 house, until there should be a proper opportunity to send him to 
 Havana ; and, when about to carry this determination into ef- 
 fect, Mr. Forsyth informed him that the district attorney of Con- 
 necticut had declared that it would be necessary for the slave 
 Antonio to remain in that state until the cause should be brought 
 by appeal before the Circuit Court, on account of the great 
 value of his evidence. To this the Chevalier d'Argaiz assent- 
 ed, and since that time he has heard nothing of the said negro. 
 
 Circumstances have, however, been entirely altered, by the 
 decision of the Supreme Court ; and, according to the informa- 
 tion received by the Chevalier d'Argaiz, it is very probable 
 that the negro will not reach Havana, if he should take upon 
 himself the charge of sending him there. For which reason, 
 he conceives that the government of the United States will be 
 better able to insure his arrival at that island, where the consul 
 of the Union may deliver him to his master. 
 
 The Chevalier d'Argaiz avails himself of this occasion to re- 
 peat to the Secretary of State the assurances of his high con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 The Chevalier d^Argdiz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 Washington, April 11, 1841. 
 
 Sir, — Her majesty's vice-consul at Boston writes to me, un- 
 der date of the 7th instant, as follows : 
 
 " I have just received from the marshal of Connecticut a let- 
 ter, of which this is a literal translation. Since my last letter 
 to you, respecting the case of the negro Antonio, my conjec- 
 tures have been realized, though in a different manner. At 
 that time I supposed and feared that the self-styled friends of 
 the Africans would solicit a writ of habeas corpus for his liber- 
 ation ; but they adopted another method. The jailer allowed 
 
 I 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 341 
 
 the boy to go about the house and assist in the hibors of the 
 kitchen and in waiting at table. The said friends availed 
 themselves of every opportunity to preach to him about liber- 
 ty, and at length induced him to go away ; they placed him on 
 board the steam-boat on Monday morning last, and he went to 
 New York. I followed him to that city, where Lewis Tappan, 
 the leader of the abolitionists, informed me that Antonio was in 
 town, but that he would not be delivered to me, and that ar- 
 rangements had been made for sending him elsewhere. I could 
 not meet him myself. I regret this occurrence very much, 
 and fear that he is beyond our reach. If, however, I should 
 succeed in finding him any where, you shall receive immediate 
 notice." 
 
 By the letters from Mr. Baldwin, of the 21st of March last, 
 and from Mr. Andrew Judson, of the 26th of the same, which 
 you were pleased to send me with your note of April 3d, it 
 appeared that the negro Antonio persisted in desiring to return 
 to Havana ; from which it may be inferred that, in order to 
 make him change that deterinination, seduction or deception 
 must have been employed, perhaps by persons whom his dec- 
 larations might have affected {comprometei-) ; and I do not un- 
 derstand why the marshal of Connecticut, whom Lewis Tap- 
 pan informed that the said negro was in the city, did not take 
 any measures to engage the authorities of that place, either 
 with the view to recover him or to have him placed on board 
 a vessel for Havana. 
 
 In virtue of what is here stated, I have considered it my 
 duty to make this communication to you, sir, having no doubt 
 that you would take the necessary measures to have the slave 
 Antonio restored to his owner. 
 
 I repeat to you, sir, the assurances of my distinguished con- 
 sideration. P. A. d'Argaiz. 
 
 Hon- Daniei, Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher Webster to the Chevalier d^Arga'iz. 
 
 Departmest of State, Washington, May 3, 1841. 
 
 Sir, — In the absence of the Secretary of State, I have the 
 honor of replying to your note of the 1 1th of April last, relating 
 to the negro Antonio. I have laid it before the President, and 
 am directed by him to say, that he regrets very much the oc- 
 currence of any event that seems at all likely to defer or de- 
 lay the final and satisfactory settlement of the affair of the 
 " Amistad." 
 
 Inquiry will be immediately directed to be made by the 
 proper officers in order to discover the slave Antonio ; and I 
 shall have much pleasure in communicating to you the earliest 
 information received at the department of the success of such 
 investigation. 
 
342 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the assurances of 
 my very high consideration. 
 
 Fletcher Webster, Acting Secretary of State. 
 
 The Chevalier d'Argaiz, &c. 
 
 The Chevalier d'Argaiz to Mr. Webster. — [translation.] 
 
 Washington, May 29, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of her Catholic majesty, has the honor, in compliance 
 with what was agreed on with the Secretary of State in their 
 last conference, to make known to him the conviction of the un- 
 dersigned that the 6th article, as also the 8th, 9th, and 10th, of 
 the treaty of 1795, have not been properly carried into execu- 
 tion (or effect), in the affair of the schooner " Amistad," as he 
 conceives that he has proved in his correspondence. The sub- 
 jects of her Catholic majesty have not received the assistance 
 expressed in those articles, nor have their properties been re- 
 spected, as is stipulated in the said articles; and this must have 
 been understood by the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, as ap- 
 pears by the opinion which he gave in November, 1839. 
 
 The government of the Union gave to this affair a course, 
 forced, illegal, and contrary to the intention of the contracting 
 parties. 
 
 The undersigned protested against it in due time, making the 
 government of the United States responsible for consequences. 
 Aware, however, of the embarrassed situation of the actual ad- 
 ministration, and that a change of circumstances has rendered 
 it impossible now to effect the fulfillment of that treaty, the un- 
 dersigned believes he ought to demand, as he now does, 
 
 1. Indemnification for the vessel called the " Amistad." 
 
 2. Indemnification for her cargo, including the negroes found 
 on board. 
 
 3. Indemnification for the losses and injuries suffered by (or 
 inflicted on) the Spanish subjects, Don Pedro Montes and Don 
 Jose Ruiz, during their unjust imprisonment. 
 
 4. The assurance that the course given to this affair shall 
 never serve as a precedent in analogous cases which may oc- 
 cur. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to repeat to 
 the Secretary of State the assurances of his high consideration. 
 
 P. A. d'Argaiz. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the Chevalier d'Argaiz. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, September 1, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
 of the note of M. d'Argaiz, envoy extraordinary and minister 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 plenipotentiary of her Catholic majesty, of the 29th of May, in 
 which he makes known to the undersigned his conviction that 
 the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth articles of the treaty of 1795, 
 between the two countries, have not properly been carried into 
 execution, in the alfair of the "Amistad," as he conceives he 
 has proved in his correspondence, and demands: 1st, indemni- 
 fication for the vessel called the "Amistad ;" 2d, indemnification 
 for the cargo, including the negroes found on board ; 3d, indem- 
 nification for the losses and injuries suffered by (or inflicted on) 
 the Spanish subjects, Don Pedro Montes and Don Jose Ruiz, 
 during their unjust imprisonment ; and, 4th, the assurance that 
 the course given to this afiHiir shall never serve as a precedent 
 for any analogous cases that may occur. 
 
 This note has been laid before the President, and the under- 
 signed has been by him instructed to reply as follows: 
 
 The President had supposed that, after the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States upon this question, there 
 would have been no occasion to renew a correspondence upon 
 it between the two governments, and that M. d'Argaiz was 
 aware that the President had no power to review or alter any 
 of the judgments of that court, it being a tribunal wholly inde- 
 pendent of the executive, and one whose decisions must be re- 
 garded as final and conclusive upon all questions brought be- 
 fore it. He had hoped, too, that its decree would have proved 
 satisfactory to M. d'Argaiz and the government of Spain, and 
 that the facts proved, and the arguments offered before it, to- 
 gether with the able opinions delivered by its members in ren- 
 dering the decree, would have prevented all disagreement or 
 dissatisfaction with the result to which they arrived. The 
 court was guided, in its deliberations, as well by the treaty be- 
 tween the two countries as by the laws of nations and of the 
 United States, and it is not for the executive to question that 
 its decree was in exact conformity with the obligations imposed 
 upon it by that treaty and those laws. 
 
 No branch of the government of the United States, whether 
 legislative, executive, or judiciary, can have been influenced 
 by any other motives than those of a sincere desire to perform 
 all the duties, and fulfill all the requirements exacted of either 
 by the terms of the treaty between this government and Spain, 
 with respect to her national character and sovereignty, and with 
 a view of preserving and strengthening the friendly relations 
 which have so long and so happily subsisted between them ; 
 and the undersigned hopes that M. d'Argaiz himself will event- 
 ually join in approbation of the course adopted, convinced, as 
 he must be, of the friendly disposition of all branches of this 
 government toward his own. 
 
 The articles to which M. d'Argaiz refers, as containing stip- 
 
344 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ulations which have not been carried into effect in the case of 
 the "Amistad," relate to the defense and protection of the persons 
 or property of the subjects or citizens of either country which 
 shall come within the jurisdiction of the other, by sea or land. 
 
 Of those cited, the ninth article, which provides for the safe 
 keeping and restoration of ships and merchandise rescued from 
 the hands of pirates and robbers, which it declares shall be re- 
 stored to their true proprietor, after due and sufficient proof 
 shall be made concerning the property thereof, seems the most 
 applicable to the case under consideration. 
 
 The undersigned, after a careful consideration of all the ar- 
 guments offered by M. d'Argaiz, and an examination of the facts 
 which have been made known, is unable to see in what partic- 
 ular this article, or any stipulation contained in it, has been vio- 
 lated or disregarded, or that the course given to this affair has 
 been in any manner contrary to the spirit and intention of any 
 part of the treaty. 
 
 Upon the arrival of the schooner " Amistad" near our coast, 
 it was, with all its cargo, according to the provisions of the 
 ninth article, taken into the custody of the officers of the near- 
 est port. 
 
 In consequence of a claim preferred for salvage by those 
 who had saved both vessel and cargo, and rescued the subjects 
 of Spain from death, or perhaps imprisonment enduring for life 
 among the savage inhabitants of Africa, the subject of the own- 
 ership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the courts. 
 Before those courts, also, the subjects of Spain submitted their 
 answer to these claims and their complaints ; with how much 
 magnanimity refusing compliance with a just demand for serv- 
 ices rendered them at such time and such a situation, the un- 
 dersigned will not undertake to say. Besides the common ar- 
 ticles of merchandise and traffic, there was found on board a 
 number of negroes, claimed as the lawful property of Spanish 
 subjects, and said to form part of the cargo ; and on these also, 
 as part of the cargo, salvage was claimed by those who had 
 saved them for their owners, if they had any, and their pretend- 
 ed owners from them. 
 
 The whole subject, then, of the ownership of the vessel, and 
 of all the cargo, came properly and legally before the courts, 
 who proceeded, as was their duty under the treaty, on the pre- 
 sentment of such a case, to investigate it carefully, deliberately, 
 and circumspectly. 
 
 Thus proceeding, the courts, upon the testimony before them, 
 decided ; awarding the vessel to its lawful owner, and the car- 
 go to its respective lawful owners, and a certain amount of sal- 
 vage to those who had been instrumental in saving both. It 
 was found by the courts that the negroes were not the lawful 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 345 
 
 property of any one, and no part of the cargo, and, consequent- 
 ly, subject to no claim for salvage, but that they were freemen, 
 captured and sold, and held in bondage, contrary as well to the 
 laws of Spain as of the United States; and the courts, in the 
 just exercise of their power, decided, as they were bound to do, 
 under existing laws and treaties, and upon the facts as they ap- 
 peared. M. d'Argaiz demands indemnification for the vessel 
 and cargo, including the negroes found on board. Were this 
 government conscious of having inflicted injury upon any, 
 whether a private individual or a powerful nation, indemnifica- 
 tion would be readily granted ; but the question of the existence 
 of any such injury must be determined by the government itself. 
 In this case the undersigned is of opinion that no injury has been 
 done to any one of the subjects of Spain, but, on the contrary, 
 that the government has gone quite as far in granting them pro- 
 tection, and manifesting a favorable disposition toward them, 
 as the circumstances under which they came within its notice 
 could demand of it. 
 
 What injury has been inflicted on the subjects of Spain, own- 
 ers of the vessel and cargo, by saving both from complete de- 
 struction, or from entire loss to them, and returning both to 
 them when their legal claims were ascertained ? what injury 
 inflicted on those presenting claims to the negroes as slaves, 
 by refusing to allow those claims, proved to be unfounded, and, 
 by all provisions of the code of either country, illegal and crim- 
 inal ? M. d'Argaiz will recollect, besides, that in his note of 
 the 26th of November, 1839, he demands these negroes, not as^ 
 property, but as criminals, or, in his own language, " not as 
 slaves, but as assassins." Had they been at any time slaves, 
 they would have become, by their killing and escape from law- 
 ful bondage, assassins and pirates, whose delivery to the gov- 
 ernment of Spain is not provided for in any stipulation of the 
 treaty of 1795, and which would have been a matter of comity 
 only, not to be demanded as a right. The one point involves 
 the other, and a refusal to deliver them, cei'tainly, is no viola- 
 tion or neglect of any obligation. But the undersigned does 
 not propose to enter into any argument upon a subject which 
 has already been discussed at length, both before the courts 
 and between the two governments. M. d'Argaiz demands, 
 also, indemnification for injuries sufl^ered by or inflicted on the 
 subjects of Spain, in the persons of Messrs. Ruiz and Montes. 
 For any such losses or injuries inflicted on these persons by 
 any one within the jurisdiction of the United States, this gov- 
 ernment offers reparation and indemnification through its 
 courts, which stand open to hear their complaints, to ascertain 
 and repair their wrongs, and punish the wrong-doers. 
 
 The undersigned, therefore, is instructed to say, that this 
 
340 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 government does not perceive with what justice any such de- 
 mands as M. d'Argaiz has presented can be made on it, and 
 confidently expects that all will agree in justifying and approv- 
 ing the course which it has adopted in regard to the affair. 
 M. d'Argaiz demands, lastly, " the assurance that the course 
 given to this affair shall never serve as a precedent in any 
 analogous cases which may occur." 
 
 While the undersigned hopes that no misfortune of the kind 
 will ever again take place upon our coast or elsewhere, and 
 that no circumstances may ever again give rise to such occur- 
 rences as those which mark the affair of the " Amistad" from 
 the commencement of her voyage, he assures M. d'Argaiz that 
 the government of the United States will endeavor to discharge 
 itself of all obligations imposed upon it with strict justice, hon- 
 orably to itself, and respectfully toward those nations with 
 whom it maintains amicable relations. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer to 
 M. d'Argaiz the assurance of his very high regard and distin- 
 guished consideration. Daniel Webster. 
 
 The Chevalier d'Argaiz, &c. 
 
 The Chevalier d^Argdiz to Mr. Webste7\ — [translation.] 
 
 BoRDENTOWN, September 24, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of her Catholic majesty, has the honor to acknowledge 
 the receipt of the note which the Secretary of State of the Fed- 
 eral government of the Union was pleased to address to him, 
 under date of the 1st instant, in answer to the letter from the 
 undersigned of the 29th of May last. 
 
 The Secretary of State, before entering upon the discussion 
 of the points to which the last note from the undersigned re- 
 lates, is pleased to say, that the President had supposed that, 
 after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
 upon this question, there would have been no occasion to re- 
 new a correspondence upon it between the two governments. 
 
 The Secretary of State, having, without doubt, carefully read 
 the whole of the correspondence which has passed between the 
 Department of State and the legation of her Catholic majesty 
 upon this subject, since the arrival of the schooner "Amistad" 
 at the port of New London, will have therein observed that 
 [this legation] has ever and constantly protested against the 
 jurisdiction oi the courts of the United States ; inasmuch as, 
 the case falling under the provisions of the treaty of 1795, it 
 should be decided solely and exclusively by the executive, and 
 not by any other power. This the Federal government of the 
 Union could not but admit, and did in fact admit, when the 
 Secretary of State's predecessor said to the undersigned, in his 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 34^ 
 
 note of the 12th December, 1839: "In connection with one of 
 the points in the Chevalier d'Argaiz's last note, the undersigned 
 will assure him that, whatever be in the end the disposal of the 
 question, it will be in consequence of a decision emanating from 
 no other source than the government of the United States ; and 
 that if the agency of the judicial authority shall have been em- 
 ployed in conducting the investigation of the case, [it] is because 
 the judiciary is, by the organic law of the land, a portion, though 
 an independent one, of that government." Relying upon this, 
 and upon this promise, the undersigned quietly awaited the con- 
 clusion of the affair; as did also the government of her Catho- 
 lic majesty, not doubting that, though the courts of the United 
 States might go so far as to investigate the facts, the final and 
 decisive determination would in any event come from the exec- 
 utive power, as had been promised. Under these circumstan- 
 ces, the undersigned does not think that the government of the 
 Union should be surprised at the continuation of a correspond- 
 ence in which, besides the maintenance of a right considered by 
 the undersigned as indisputable, compliance with a promise is 
 also claimed. If, moreover, the President has not the power to 
 destroy or to change in the slightest degree a decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, her Catholic majesty's gov- 
 ernment can not agree [conformaise — allow, submit to] that the 
 consequence of this should be, in the present case, the open vi- 
 olation of a treaty, which ought to be respected as the supreme 
 law of the United States. 
 
 The Secretary of State says that " the court was guided, in 
 its deliberations, as well by the treaty between the two coun- 
 tries as by the law of nations and of the United States, and it 
 is not for the executive to question that its decree was in exact 
 conformity with the obligations imposed upon it by that treaty 
 and those laws." The undersigned regrets that there should 
 be between the Secretary of State and himself so great a dif- 
 ference in the manner of regarding this point ; for, if the court 
 of the Union possess the right of interpreting, considering, and 
 deciding upon treaties contracted between nation and nation, 
 and the executive power can not inquire whether their decrees 
 are or are not conformable with justice, it would be as well to 
 declare that, in order to give to treaties the force of treaties, 
 or, at least, to render them obligatory, they should be conclud- 
 ed with the judicial power, or, in better words, that treaties 
 should be made, for them to be afterward interpreted as the 
 courts might think proper. 
 
 The enlightened Secretary of State will agree with the un- 
 dersigned that one of the things which principally constitute 
 the independence of a country is the jurisdiction of its courts, 
 or, in other words, that no nation, nor its courts, should assume 
 
348 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the faculty of pronouncing judicially upon acts committed with- 
 in the jurisdiction of another. On this principle, the under- 
 signed can not conceive how the Secretary of State could for 
 a single moment have supposed that the undersigned would 
 have agreed to, and have seen with satisfaction, the decision 
 of a court of the United States, pronounced upon acts apper- 
 taining to Spanish subjects, committed on board of a Spanish 
 vessel, and in the waters of a Spanish territory, within the pur- 
 view of a treaty and of the law of nations. 
 
 The Secretary of State is also pleased to observe, " that the 
 schooner 'Amistad,' upon her arrival on this coast, was, with 
 all her cargo, according to the provisions of the ninth article, 
 taken into the custody of the officers of the nearest port, and 
 that, in consequence of a claim for salvage, the subject of the 
 ownership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the 
 courts." The undersigned will not stop to remark upon the 
 magnanimity of a demand for salvage preferred by officers of 
 a ship of war of the United States. But does the Secretary 
 of State believe that this can justify the intervention of the 
 courts of the United States in this case, contrary to the opinion 
 given by the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, and after, more- 
 over, the officers themselves had renounced their claim to sal- 
 vage, as Lieutenant Gedney, the commander of the Washing- 
 ton, himself declared to the undersigned? 
 
 The Secretary of State also says, tfiat " it was found by the 
 courts that the negroes were not the lawful property of any 
 one." One violation of necessity brought on another, not less 
 unjust ; for the judges of the United States, in order to ascer- 
 tain whether or not the Africans were the lawful property of 
 Spanish subjects, thought proper to examine the papers found 
 on board of the vessel, which had been given by the authori- 
 ties of her Catholic majesty in the Island of Cuba. This was 
 a recognition of the right of search, which, besides its not being 
 authorized by any nation, has been combated by writers on 
 public law, and most particularly, in the case in question, by 
 the distinguished jurist Mr. Grundy, attorney-general of the 
 Union at the time when the schooner "Amistad" arrived on the 
 Anglo-American coasts. (See his opinion on this case.) 
 
 With all these considerations in view, and after having care- 
 fully examined the note of the Secretary of State, the under- 
 signed can not comprehend upon what that gentleman founds 
 his assertion, that the courts of the United States could prop- 
 erly and lawfully take cognizance of this case. 
 
 There is, however, one circumstance which the undersigned 
 considers well worthy of remark, as the Secretary of State 
 says that court decided that the vessel and her cargo belonged 
 to their lawful owners. As the vessel and cargo had been pub- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 849 
 
 licly sold — by whose orders or how, neither the undersigned 
 nor the owners knew — nothing seems to be more just and equi- 
 table than to indemnify promptly, duly, and fully those whose 
 property had been unjustly taken away, in manifest contradic- 
 tion to the sense and letter of the ninth article of the treaty of 
 1795 ; yet when the undersigned claims the indemnification so 
 justly due, the Secretary of State makes no reply on this point, 
 limiting himself, as may be seen in the twelfth paragraph of his 
 note to the declaration, that " were the government of the Unit- 
 ed Stales conscious of having inflicted injury upon any, whether 
 a private individual or a powerful nation, indemnification would 
 be readily granted." The undersigned conceives that the fact 
 of individuals, subjects of her Catholic majesty, having been ar- 
 bitrarily deprived of their vessel and cargo should be sufficient 
 to produce the conviction that indemnification is due to them. 
 
 The Secretary of State asks : " What injury has been in- 
 flicted on the subjects of Spain, owners of the vessel and cargo, 
 by saving both from complete destruction or from entire loss 
 to them, and returning both to them when their legal claims 
 were ascertained ?" In the first place, the undersigned sees 
 with regret that the Secretary of State is under an erroneous 
 impression, for her Catholic majesty's subjects have not receiv- 
 ed, to this day, either the vessel or her cargo ; and how could 
 they have been delivered to them, since they were sold during 
 the absence of those subjects, and without their knowledge ? 
 The undersigned will, on his side, ask, in what point have the 
 stipulations of the eighth article of the treaty of 1795 been ful- 
 filled toward her Catholic majesty's subjects, Don Jose Ruiz 
 and Don Pedro Monies ? Have they been ti-eated with human- 
 ity ? Have all favor, protection, and help been extended to 
 them ? Have they been permitted to remove and depart, when 
 and whither they pleased, without let or hinderance ? The un- 
 just imprisonment which they suflTered for several months will 
 serve as an answer to these questions. 
 
 The undersigned can not in any way admit the supposition 
 advanced by the Secretary of State, that, " even had the ne- 
 groes been at any time slaves, they would not have become, by 
 their killing and escape from lawful bondage, assassins and pi- 
 rates, whose delivery to the government of Spain, not having 
 been provided for in any stipulations of the treaty of 1795, 
 would have been a matter of comity only, not to be demanded 
 as a right." The treaty of 1795 unquestionably does not pro- 
 vide for the delivery of pirates or assassins, but only because 
 the contracting parties could never have imagined that a case 
 like the present could have occasioned doubts of any kind, and 
 because the point was so clear that they did not think it neces- 
 sary to take it into consideration. Who can foresee the horri- 
 
350 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 ble consequences which may result, as well in the islands of 
 Cuba and Porto Rico as in the Southern States of the Union, 
 should the slaves come to learn — and there will be no want of 
 persons to inform them — that, on murdering, killing, and flying 
 from lawful captivity whensoever they may be in transporta- 
 tion from one point of the islands to another, and coming to the 
 United States, the delivery of them, on account of their having 
 murdered, killed, or fled, can not be demanded as a right? 
 The undersigned leaves to the characteristic penetration of the 
 Secretary of State [the task of imagining] the severe incalcula- 
 ble evils which may be occasioned by realizing this supposition. 
 
 The undersigned duly acknowledges the favor of the offer 
 made by the Secretary of State to the Spanish subjects Ruiz 
 and Montes, that the courts of the United States would be open 
 for them to present their complaints on account of injuries or 
 personal sufferings. To these courts natives as well as foreign- 
 ers can indifferently have recourse ; but Messrs. Montes and 
 Ruiz are in a particular position, in which they are placed as 
 well by the treaty of 1795 as by the law of nations, and, in or- 
 der to preserve it, they magnanimously suffered a severe im- 
 prisonment for months. As they have, in consequence, placed 
 themselves under the protection of her Catholic majesty's le- 
 gation, they will through it, as the undersigned hoj)es, obtain 
 a happy result from their complaints. 
 
 In consideration of all that has been here set forth, the un- 
 dersigned takes pleasure in believing that the Secretary of 
 State will find his demands just and well founded, and will, he 
 doubts not, take proper measures for arriving at the happy con- 
 summation which he promises to himself The undersigned, at 
 the same time, thinks it his duty to state that he has received 
 express orders from his government to protest, in the most sol- 
 emn and formal manner, against all that has been done by the 
 courts of the United States in the case of the schooner Ami- 
 stad, the fulfillment of this order being one of the principal ob- 
 jects which the undersigned proposed to accomplish by this 
 note. 
 
 The undersigned can not conclude this communication with-' 
 out conveying to the Secretary of State his acknowledgments 
 for the expression of his desire to preserve unbroken the old 
 and friendly relations which, fortunately and for their mutual 
 prosperity, bind Spain to the United States. The undersigned 
 and his government cherish the same desires ; and, with this 
 understanding, he flatters himself that he will shortly receive a 
 proof of the scrupulous exactness with which the government 
 of the Union fulfills the treaties and stipulations which unite it 
 with other friendly nations. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to repeat 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 351 
 
 to the Secretary of State the assurances of his high esteem and 
 distinguished consideration. P. A. d'Argaiz. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United Stales. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the Chevalier d'Argaiz. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, June 21, 1842. 
 
 The Secretary of State has to acknowledge the receipt of 
 the note of the 24th of September, which M. d'Argaiz did him 
 the honor to address to him. 
 
 Viewing that note as intended mainly for a protest against 
 the proceedings of this government in the case of the "Ami- 
 stad," the undersigned did not think a reply was desired, or that 
 any advantage would ensue from further prolonging the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Understanding now, from conversation with M. d'Argaiz, 
 that a reply is expected, the undersigned proceeds to offer some 
 remarks on the subject of M. d'Argaiz's note. 
 
 The undersigned did certainly suppose that the communica- 
 tion to M. d'Argaiz of the decision of the Supreme Court would 
 close the correspondence on that subject. The immediate 
 predecessor of the undersigned, whose remarks, as quoted by 
 M. d'Argaiz, the undersigned well remembers, meant, and could 
 have meant nothing more, by those remarks, than that the de- 
 cision of the Supreme Court would be the decision of the gov- 
 ernment. Mr. Forsyth does not use the word executive in this 
 connection. He says, " Government." " Whatever be, in the 
 end, the disposal of the question, it will be in consequence of a 
 decision emanating from no other source than the government 
 of the United States." 
 
 The Supreme Court is a part of that government, as Mr. 
 Forsyth remarks ; and its decision, in matters lawfully within 
 its jurisdiction, is the final decision of the government of the 
 United States upon such matters. 
 
 M. d'Argaiz seems to think that a treaty stipulation can not 
 be subjected to the interpretation of the judicial authority, and 
 proceeds to remark, that, " if the courts of the Union possess 
 the right of interpreting, considering, and deciding upon treaties 
 contracted between nation and nation, and the executive power 
 can not inquire whether their decrees are or are not conforma- 
 ble with justice, it would be as well to declare that, in order to 
 give to treaties the force of treaties, or, at least, to render them 
 obligatory, they should be concluded with the judicial power, 
 or, in better words, that treaties should be made, for them to 
 be afterward interpreted as the courts might think proper." 
 But the undersigned supposes that nothing is more common, in 
 countries where the judiciary is an independent branch of the 
 government, than for questions arising under treaties to be 
 
352 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 submitted to its decision. Indeed, in all regular governments 
 questions of private right, arising under treaty stipulations, are 
 in their nature judicial questions. With us, a treaty is part of 
 the supreme law of the land ; as such it influences and controls 
 the decisions of all tribunals ; and many instances might be 
 quoted of decisions made in the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, arising under their several treaties with Spain herself, 
 as well as under treaties between the United States and other 
 nations. Similar instances of judicial decisions on points aris- 
 ing under treaties may be found in the history of France, En- 
 gland, and other nations ; and, indeed, the undersigned would 
 take the liberty to remind the Chevalier d'Argaiz that this very 
 treaty of 1795 has been made the subject of judicial decision by 
 a Spanish tribunal. 
 
 The undersigned would call to the recollection of the Chev- 
 alier d'Argaiz the case of Mr. D. Hareng, in which the Spanish 
 colonial courts decided according to their sense of the intention 
 of the treaty of 1795, and the intendant confirmed their decree, 
 which was, that nothing in that treaty exempted Mr. Hareng 
 from the payment of certain demands. From this decision this 
 government was inclined to dissent, but never questioned the 
 right and duty of a Spanish court to consider the intent and ef- 
 fect of a treaty. 
 
 M. d'Argaiz states : " The enlightened Secretary of State 
 will agree with the undersigned that one of the things which 
 principally constitute the independence of a country is the ju- 
 risdiction of its courts, or, in other words, that no nation, nor 
 its courts, should assume the faculty of pronouncing judicially 
 upon acts committed within the jurisdiction of another. On 
 this principle, the undersigned can not conceive how the Sec- 
 retary of State could for a single moment have supposed that 
 the undersigned would have agreed to, and have seen with sat- 
 isfaction, the decision of a court of the United States, pronounc- 
 ed upon acts appertaining to Spanish subjects, committed on 
 board of a Spanish vessel, and in the waters of a Spanish ter- 
 ritory, within the purview of a treaty and of the law of nations. 
 
 " The Secretary of State is also pleased to observe, ' that the 
 schooner "Amistad," upon her arrival on this coast, was, with 
 all her cargo, according to the provisions of the ninth article, 
 taken into the custody of the officers of the nearest port, and that, 
 in consequence of a claim for salvage, the subject of the own- 
 ership of the vessel and cargo was brought before the courts.' 
 The undersigned will not stop to remark upon the magnanimi- 
 ty of a demand for salvage preferred by officers of a ship of 
 war of the United States. But does the Secretary of State be- 
 lieve that this can justify the intervention of the courts of the 
 United States in this case, contrary to the opinion given by 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 353 
 
 the attorney-general, Mr. Grundy, and after, moreover, the offi- 
 cers themselves had renounced their claim to salvage, as Lieu- 
 tenant Gedney, the commander of the Washington, himself de- 
 clared to the undersigned ? The Secretary of State also says, 
 • that it was found by the courts that the negroes were not the 
 lawful property of any one.' One violation of necessity brought 
 on another, not less unjust ; for the judges of the United Stales, 
 in order to ascertain whether or not the Africans were the law- 
 ful property of Spanish subjects, thought proper to examine the 
 papers found on board of the vessel, which had been given by 
 the authorities of her Catholic majesty in the Island of Cuba. 
 This was a recognition of the right of search, which, besides 
 its not being authorized by any nation, has been combated by 
 writers on public law, and most particularly, in the case in 
 question, by the distinguished jurist, Mr. Grundy, attorney-gen- 
 eral of the Union, at the time when the schooner 'Amistad' ar- 
 rived on the Anglo-American coasts. (See his opinion on the 
 case.)" 
 
 The undersigned will make one more attempt to state the 
 general occurrences of this transaction so plainly that he can 
 not be misunderstood, with a hope of convincing M. d'Argaiz 
 that nothing has been done by the authorities of the United 
 Slates, or any of them, not in strict accordance with the prin- 
 ciples of public law and the practice of nations; nothing which 
 can be complained of with justice as an encroachment upon 
 Spanish territories, or visiting and searching Spanish vessels. 
 The succinct history of the case is the most complete justifica- 
 tion which can be made of all that has been done in regard to 
 it in the United States. 
 
 Lieutenant Gedney, of the United Slates brig Washington, 
 on the 27th of June, 1839, discovered the Spanish schooner 
 "Amistad," then at anchor within half a mile of the shore of 
 the United States. The vessel was then in possession of cer- 
 tain blacks, who had risen upon and killed the captain. Lieu- 
 tenant Gedney took possession of and brought in the vessel to 
 the United States, and for this service claimed salvage upon 
 the common principles of maritime law. The possession of 
 the vessel had become already lost to her owners ; and to save 
 her from entire destruction, and to restore her to those owners, 
 was esteemed a meritorious service. The Chevalier d'Argaiz 
 must certainly understand, that when merchant vessels are met 
 with at sea so shattered by storms and tempests, or other dis- 
 asters, or so deprived of their crew as to be unable to prose- 
 cute their voyages, in all such cases other vessels falling in with 
 them and saving them are entitled to reasonable compensation.; 
 and, to ascertain the amount of this compensation, the vessel is 
 to be brought in, subjected to judicial proceedings, and justice 
 
 Z 
 
354 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 rendered the claimants and salvors, according to well-estab- 
 lished rules and principles. 
 
 Spain herself, in the early ages of commerce, was among the 
 first to establish the principles, and lead in the administration, of 
 this part of the maritime law, and these principles now prevail 
 over the whole commercial world ; and the highest judicial au- 
 thority in the United States, acting under the influence of the 
 same rules which must have controlled the decisions of an En- 
 glish tribunal, a French tribunal, or a Spanish tribunal, has de- 
 cided that the case was a case for salvage, and has decreed to 
 the salvors a just compensation. The undersigned is, therefore, 
 quite at a loss to conceive how this transaction can be deemed 
 an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of Spain, or an unlawful 
 visitation and search of Spanish vessels. At the institution of 
 proceedings in the court, claims were interposed on behalf of 
 Spanish subjects for the vessel and cargo, which were allowed, 
 subject to salvage. 
 
 Claims were also interposed for the negroes found on board, 
 which were claimed as slaves, and the property of Spanish 
 subjects. On the other hand, the negroes denied that they 
 were slaves, and the property of Spanish subjects or any other 
 persons. It was impossible for the courts to avoid the decis- 
 ions of the questions thus brought before them ; and, in deciding 
 them, it was bound to regard the law of nations, the laws of 
 Spain, the treaty between Spain and the United States, the 
 laws of the United States, and the evidence produced in the 
 case. 
 
 Proceeding upon these grounds, after a very patient investi- 
 gation, and the hearing of elaborate arguments, the court de- 
 cided that the negroes found on board the Amistad, with one 
 exception, were not slaves, nor the property of any body, but 
 were free persons, and therefore decreed that they should be 
 set at liberty. All this appears to the undersigned to be in the 
 common course of such affairs. The questions in which Span- 
 ish subjects were interested have been heard and tried before 
 competent tribunals, and one of them has been decided against 
 the Spanish subjects ; but this can give no possible ground of 
 complaint on the part of Spain, unless Spain can show that the 
 tribunal has acted corruptly, or has decided wrong in a case 
 in no degree doubtful. Nations are bound to maintain respect- 
 able tribunals, to which the subjects of states at peace may have 
 recourse for the redress of injuries and the maintenance of 
 their rights. If the character of these tribunals be respectable, 
 impartial, and independent, their decisions are to be regarded 
 as conclusive. 
 
 The United States have carried the principle of acquiescence, 
 in such cases, as far as any nation upon earth, and, in respect 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. S^S 
 
 to the decisions of Spanish tribunals, quite as frequently, per- 
 haps, as in respect to the tribunals of any other nation. 
 
 In almost innumerable cases of reclamations sought by citi- 
 zens of the United States against Spain for alleged captures, 
 seizures, and other wrongs committed by Spanish subjects, the 
 answer has been that the question has been fairly tried before 
 an impartial Spanish tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, 
 and decided against the claimant; and in the sufficiency of this 
 answer the government of the United States has acquiesced. 
 
 If the tribunal be competent, if it be free from unjust influence, 
 if it be impartial and independent, and if it has heard the case 
 fully and fairly, its judgment is to stand as decisive of the mat- 
 ter before it. This principle governs in regard to the decisions 
 of courts of common law, courts of equity, and especially courts 
 of admiralty, where proceedings so often afiect the rights and 
 interests of citizens of foreign states and governments. 
 
 M. d'Argaiz complains that the vessel and cargo were sold, 
 and that loss thereby happened to the owners. But all this was 
 inevitable, and no blame attaches on account of it to the tribu- 
 nal. In cases of an allowance for salvage, if the owner be not 
 present and ready to pay the amount, the property must nec- 
 essarily be sold, that the proceeds be properly apportioned be- 
 tween owner and salvor. This is a daily occurrence in every 
 court of admiralty in the world. Sufficient notice of the in- 
 tended sale was giv^en in legal form, in order that the claimants 
 might be present, or might, if they pleased, prevent it, by pay- 
 ing the amount awarded for salvage, and receive their property. 
 The ChevaUer d'Argaiz complains that Messrs. Montes and 
 Ruiz suffered an unjust imprisonment in the United States. 
 The undersigned can not but think that such an allegation of 
 injury, put forth in behalf of Messrs. Montes and Ruiz, is not a 
 little extraordinary. These persons themselves had held in un- 
 just and cruel confinement certain negroes who, it appeared on 
 trial, were as free as themselves, and these negroes, finding 
 themselves within the protection of equal laws, sought redress, 
 by a regular appeal to those laws, for the injuries wnich they 
 had suffered. The pursuit of this redress by the injured par- 
 ties, it appears, subjected Messrs. Ruiz and Montes to a tempo- 
 rary imprisonment. In the judgment of enlightened men, they 
 will probably be thought to have been very fortunate in escap- 
 ing severer consequences. M. d'Argai'z's note contains a par- 
 agraph of the following tenor : 
 
 " The undersigned can not in any way admit the supposition 
 advanced by the Secretary of State, that, ' even had the ne- 
 groes been at any time slaves, they would not have become, by 
 their killing and escape from lawful bondage, assassins and pi- 
 rales, whose delivery to the government of Spain, not having 
 
356 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 been provided for in any stipulations of the treaty of 1795, 
 would have been a matter of comity only, not to be demanded 
 as a right,' The treaty of 1795, unquestionably, does not pro- 
 vide for the delivery of pirates or assassins, but only because 
 the contracting parties could never have imagined that a case 
 like the present could have occasioned doubts of any kind, and 
 because the point was so clear that they did not think it nec- 
 essary to take it into consideration. Who can foresee the hor- 
 rible consequences which may result, as well in the islands of 
 Cuba and Porto Rico as in the Southern States of the Union, 
 should the slaves come to learn — and there will be no want of 
 persons to inform them — that, on murdering, killing, and flying 
 from lawful captivity whensoever they may be in transporta- 
 tion from one point of the islands to another, and coming to the 
 United States, the delivery of them, on account of their having 
 murdered, killed, or fled, can not be demanded as a right ? The 
 undersigned leaves to the characteristic penetration of the Sec- 
 retary of State [the task of imagining] the severe incalculable 
 evils which may be occasioned by realizing this supposition." 
 
 The undersigned must beg leave to differ entirely from M. 
 d'Argaiz in regard to the rule of law for delivering up crimin- 
 als and fugitives from justice. Although such extradition is 
 sometimes made, yet, in the absence of treaty stipulations, it is 
 always matter of comity or courtesy. No government is un- 
 derstood to be bound by the positive law of nations to deliver 
 up criminals, fugitives from justice, who have sought an asylum 
 within its limits. The government of the United States has 
 had occasion to hold intercourse on this question with England, 
 France, Russia, Denmark, and Sweden ; and it understands it 
 to be the sentiment of all these governments, as well as the 
 judgment of standard writers on public law, that, in the ab- 
 sence of provisions by treaty, the extradition of fugitive offend- 
 ers is a matter resting in the option and discretion of every 
 government. 
 
 The undersigned has thus once more gone over the circum- 
 stances of this case, and stated the view which the government 
 of the United States has of it. He sincerely and confidently 
 hopes that the Chevalier d'Argaiz will perceive that this gov- 
 ernment has violated none of its obligations to Spain, or done 
 injustice, in any manner whatever, to any Spanish subject. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to 
 the Chevalier d'Argaiz assurances of his high consideration. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 The Chevalier d'ARGAiz, &c. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 357 
 
 CHINA AND THE SANDWICH ISLANDS. 
 
 Message from the Pi-esident of the United States, respecting the 
 Trade and Commerce of the United States with the Sandwich 
 Islands, and of Diplomatic Intercourse xoilh their Government ; 
 also, in relation to the new Position of Affairs in China, 
 growing out of the late War between Great Britain and China, 
 and recommending Provision for a Diplomatic Agent, Decem- 
 ber 31, 1842. 
 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 
 I COMMUNICATE herewith to Congress copies of a correspond- 
 ence which has recently taken place between certain agents 
 of the government of the Hawaiian, or Sandwich Islands, and 
 the Secretary of State. 
 
 The condition of those islands has excited a good deal of in- 
 terest, which is increasing by every successive proof that their 
 inhabitants are making progress in civilization, and becoming 
 more and more competent to maintain regular and orderly 
 civil government. They lie in the Pacific Ocean, much nearer 
 to this Continent than the other, and have become an important 
 place for the refitment and provisioning of American and Eu- 
 ropean vessels. 
 
 Owing to their locality, and to the course of the winds which 
 prevail in this quarter of the world, the Sandwich Islands are 
 the stopping-place for almost all vessels passing from continent 
 to continent across the Pacific Ocean. They are especially 
 resorted to by the great numbers of vessels of the United States 
 which are engaged in the whale fishery in those seas. The 
 number of vessels of all sorts, and the amount of property own- 
 ed by citizens of the United States which are I'ound in those 
 islands in the course of a year, are stated, probably with suf- 
 ficient accuracy, in the letter of the agents. 
 
 Just emerging from a state of barbarism, the government 
 of the islands is as yet feeble ; but its dispositions appear to be 
 just and pacific, and it seems anxious to improve the condition 
 of its people by the introduction of knowledge, of religious and 
 moral institutions, means of education, and the arts of civilized 
 life. 
 
 It can not but be in conformity with the interest and the 
 wishes of the government and the people of the United States, 
 that this community, thus existing in the midst of a vast ex- 
 panse of ocean, should be respected, and all its rights strictly 
 and conscientiously regarded. And this must also be the true 
 
358 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 interest of all other commercial states. Far remote from the 
 dominions of European powers, its growth and prosperity as 
 an independent state may yet be in a high degree useful to all 
 whose trade is extended to those regions, while its nearer ap- 
 proach to this Continent, and the intercourse which American 
 vessels have with it — such vessels constituting five sixths of all 
 which annually visit it — could not but create dissatisfaction on 
 the part of the United States at any attempt by another power, 
 should such attempt be threatened or feared, to take possession 
 of the islands, colonize them, and subvert the native govern- 
 ment. Considering, therefore, that the United States possesses 
 so very large a share of the intercourse with those islands, it 
 is deemed not unfit to make the declaration, that their govern- 
 ment seeks nevertheless no peculiar advantages, no exclusive 
 control over the Hawaiian government, but is content with its 
 independent existence, and anxiously wishes for its security 
 and prosperity. Its forbearance in this respect, under the cir- 
 cumstances of the very large intercourse of their citizens with 
 the islands, would justify this government, should events here- 
 after arise to require it, in making a decided remonstrance 
 against the adoption of an opposite policy by any other power. 
 Under the circumstances, I recommend to Congress to provide 
 for a moderate allowance to be made out of the treasury to the 
 consul residing there, that, in a government so new and a 
 country so remote, American citizens may have respectable au- 
 thority to which to apply for redress in case of injury to their 
 persons and property, and to whom the government of the 
 country may also make known any acts committed by Ameri- 
 can citizens, of which it may think it has a right to complain. 
 
 Events of considerable importance have recently transpired 
 in China. The military operations carried on against that em- 
 pire by the English government have been terminated by a 
 treaty, according to the terms of which four important ports, 
 hitherto shut against foreign commerce, are to be open to Brit- 
 ish merchants, viz. : Amoy, Foo-Choo-Foo, Ningpo, and Ching- 
 hai. It can not but be interesting to the mercantile interest 
 of the United States, whose intercourse with China at the sin- 
 gle port of Canton has already become so considerable, to 
 ascertain whether these other ports, now open to British com- 
 merce, are to remain shut, nevertheless, against the commerce 
 of the United States. The treaty between the Chinese govern- 
 ment and the British commissioner provides neither for the ad- 
 mission nor the exclusion of the ships of other nations. It 
 would seem, therefore, that it remains with every other nation 
 having commercial intercourse with China to seek to make 
 proper arrangements for itself with the government of that em- 
 pire in this respect. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 359 
 
 The importations into the United States from China are 
 known to be large, having amounted in some years to nine 
 millions of dollars. The exports, too, from the United States 
 to China constitute an interesting and growing part of the 
 commerce of the country. It appears that, in the year 1841, 
 in the direct trade between the two countries, the value of the 
 exports from the United States amounted to $715,000 in do- 
 mestic produce, and $485,000 in foreign merchandise. But the 
 whole amount of American produce which finally reaches 
 China, and is there consumed, is not comprised in these sums, 
 which include only the direct trade. Many vessels with Amer- 
 ican products on board sail with a primary destination to other 
 countries, but ultimately dispose of more or less of their car- 
 goes in the port of Canton. 
 
 The peculiarities of the Chinese government and the Chinese 
 character are well known. An empire supposed to contain 
 300,000,000 of subjects, fertile in various rich ))roducts of the 
 earth, not without the knowledge of letters and of many arts, 
 and with large and expensive accommodations for internal in- 
 tercourse and traffic, has for ages sought to exclude the visits 
 of strangers and ibreigners from its dominions, and has assumed 
 for itself a superiority over all other nations. Events appear 
 likely to break down and soften this spirit of non-intercourse, 
 and to bring China, ere long, into the relations which usually 
 subsist between civilized states. She has agreed in the treaty 
 with England that correspondence between the agents of the 
 two governments shall be on equal terms : a concession which 
 it is hardly probable will hereafter be withheld from other na- 
 tions. 
 
 It is true, that the cheapness of labor among the Chinese, 
 their ingenuity in its application, and the fixed character of 
 their habits and pursuits, may discourage the hope of the open- 
 ing of any great and sudden demand for the fabrics of other 
 countries ; but experience proves that the productions of West- 
 era nations find a market, to some extent, among the Chinese ; 
 that that market, so far as respects the productions of the 
 United States, although it has considerably varied in successive 
 seasons, has, on the whole, more than doubled within the last 
 ten years ; and it can hardly be doubted that the opening of 
 several new and important ports, connected with parts of the 
 empire heretofore seldom visited by Europeans or Americans, 
 would exercise a favorable influence upon the demand for such 
 productions. 
 
 It is not understood that the immediate establishment of cor- 
 respondent embassies and missions, or the permanent residence 
 of diplomatic functionaries, with full powers, of each country, 
 at the court of the other, is contemplated between England and 
 
360 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 Cliina; although, as has been ah'eady observed, it has been 
 stipulated that intercourse between the two countries shall 
 hereafter be on equal terms. An embassador, or envoy extra- 
 ordinary and minister plenipotentiary, can only be accredited, 
 according to the usages of Western nations, to the head or sov- 
 ereign of the state ; and it may be doubtful whether the court 
 of Pekin is yet prepared to conform to these usages, so far as 
 to receive a minister plenipotentiary to reside near it. 
 
 Being of opinion, however, that the commercial interests of 
 the United States connected with China require, at the present 
 moment, a degree of attention and vigilance such as there is 
 no agent of this government on the spot to bestow, I recom- 
 mend to Congress to make appropriation for the compensation 
 of a commissioner to reside in China, to exercise a watchful 
 care over the concerns of American citizens, and for the pro- 
 tection of their persons and property ; empowered to hold in- 
 tercourse with the local authorities, and ready, under instruc- 
 tions from his government, should such instructions become 
 necessary and proper hereafter, to address himself to the high 
 functionaries of the empire, or, through them, to the emperor 
 himself 
 
 It will not escape the observation of Congress, that, in order 
 to secure the important objects of any such measure, a citizen 
 of much intelligence and weight of character should be em- 
 ployed on such agency ; and that, to secure the services of 
 such an individual, a compensation should be made correspond- 
 ing with the magnitude and importance of the mission. 
 
 John Tyler. 
 
 Washington, Becember 30, 1842. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Gushing. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, May 8, 1843. 
 
 Sir, — You have been appointed by the President commis- 
 sioner to China, and envoy extraordinary and minister pleni- 
 potentiary of the United States to the court of that empire. 
 The ordinary general or circular letter of instructions will be 
 placed in your hands, and another letter stating the composition 
 or organization of the mission, your own allowances, the allow- 
 ance of the secretary, and other matters connected with the 
 expenditures about to be incurred under the authority of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 It now remains for this department to say something of the 
 political objects of the mission, and the manner in which it is 
 hoped those objects may be accomplished. It is less necessary 
 than it might otherwise be to enter into a detailed statement 
 of the considerations which have led to the institution of the 
 mission, not only as you will be furnished with a copy of the 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 361 
 
 President's communication to Congress recommending pro- 
 vision to be made for the measure, but also as your connection 
 with Congress has necessarily brought those considerations to 
 your notice and contemplation. 
 
 Occurrences happening in China within the last two years 
 have resulted in events which are likely to be of much import- 
 ance as well to the United States as to the rest of the civilized 
 world. Of their still more important consequences to China 
 herself it is not necessary here to speak. The hostilities which 
 have been carried on between that empire and England have 
 resulted, among other consequences, in opening four important 
 ports to English commerce, viz. : Amoy, Ning-po, Shang-hai, 
 and Fu-chovv. 
 
 These ports belong to some of the richest, most productive, 
 and most populous provinces of the empire, and are likely to 
 become very important marts of commerce. A leading object 
 of the mission in which you are now to be engaged is, to se- 
 cure the entry of American ships and cargoes into these ports 
 on terms as favorable as those which are enjoyed by English 
 merchants. It is not necessary to dwell here on the great and 
 well-known amount of imports of the productions of China into 
 the United States. These imports, especially in the great ar- 
 ticle of tea, are not likely to be diminished. Heretofore they 
 have been paid for in the precious metals, or, more recently, 
 by bills drawn on London. At one time, indeed, American 
 paper of certain descriptions was found to be an available re- 
 mittance. Latterly, a considerable trade has sprung up in the 
 export of certain American manufactures to China. To aug- 
 ment these exports, by obtaining the most favorable commercial 
 facilities, and cultivating, to the greatest extent practicable, 
 friendly commercial intercourse with China in all its accessible 
 ports, is matter of moment to the commercial and manufactur- 
 ing as well as the agricultural and mining interests of the United 
 States. It can not be foreseen how rapidly or how slowly a 
 people of such peculiar habits as the Chinese, and apparently so 
 tenaciously attached to those habits, may adopt the sentiments, 
 ideas, and customs of other nations. But if prejudiced, and 
 strongly wedded to their own usages, the Chinese are still un- 
 derstood to be ingenious, acute, and inquisitive. Experience 
 thus far, if it does not strongly animate and encourage efforts 
 to introduce some of the arts and the products of other coun- 
 tries into China, is not, nevertheless, of a character such as 
 should entirely repress those efforts. You will be furnished 
 with accounts, as accurate as can be obtained, of the history 
 and present state of the export trade of the United States to 
 China. 
 
 As your mission has in view only friendly and commercial 
 
362 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 objects — objects, it is supposed, equally useful to both countries 
 — the natural jealousy of the Chinese, and their repulsive feel- 
 ing toward foreigners, it is hoped, may be in some degree re- 
 moved or mitigated by prudence and address on your part. 
 Your constant aim must be, to produce a full conviction on the 
 minds of the government and the people that your mission is 
 entirely pacific ; that you come with no purposes of hostility 
 or annoyance ; that you are a messenger of peace, sent from 
 the greatest power in America to the greatest empire in Asia, 
 to offer respect and good-will, and to establish the means of 
 friendly intercourse. It will be expedient, on all occasions, to 
 cultivate the friendly dispositions of the government and peo- 
 ple, by manifesting a proper respect for their institutions and 
 manners, and avoiding, as far as possible, the giving of offense 
 either to their pride or their prejudices. You will use the 
 earliest and all succeeding occasions to signify that the govern- 
 ment which sends you has no disposition to encourage, and will 
 not encourage, any violation of the commercial regulations of 
 China by citizens of the United States. You will state in the 
 fullest manner the acknowledgment of this government, that 
 the commercial regulations of the empire, having become fairly 
 and fully known, ought to be respected by all ships and all per- 
 sons visiting its ports ; and if citizens of the United States, un- 
 der these circumstances, are found violating well-known laws of 
 trade, their government will not interfere to protect them from 
 the consequences of their own illegal conduct. You will at the 
 same time assert and maintain, on all occasions, the equality 
 and independence of your own country. The Chinese are apt 
 to speak of persons coming into the empire from other nations 
 as tribute-bearers to the emperor. This idea has been fos- 
 tered, perhaps, by the costly parade of embassies from England. 
 All ideas of this kind respecting your mission must, should they 
 arise, be immediately met by a declaration, not made ostenta- 
 tiously, or in a manner reproachful toward others, that you are 
 no tribute-bearer ; that your government pays tribute to none, 
 and expects tribute from none ; and that, even as to presents, 
 your government neither makes nor accepts pi-esents. You 
 will signify to all Chinese authorities, and others, that it is 
 deemed to be quite below the dignity of the Emperor of China 
 and the President of the United States of America to be con- 
 cerning themselves with such unimportant matters as presents 
 from one to the other ; that the intercourse between the heads 
 of two such governments should be made to embrace only great 
 political questions, the tender of mutual regard, and the estab- 
 lishment of useful relations. 
 
 It is, of course, desirable that you should be able to reach 
 Pekin, and the court and person of the emperor, if practicable. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 363 
 
 You will, accordingly, at all times signify this as being your pur- 
 pose and the object of your mission ; and perhaps it may be 
 well to advance as near to the capital as shall be found prac- 
 ticable, without waiting to announce your arrival in the coun- 
 try. The purpose of seeing the emperor in person must be 
 persisted in as long as may be becoming and proper. You will 
 inform the officers of the government that you have a letter of 
 friendship from the President of the United States to the em- 
 peror, signed by the President's own hand, which you can not 
 deliver except to the emperor himself, or some high officer of 
 the court in his presence. You will say, also, that you have a 
 commission conferring on you the highest rank among repre- 
 sentatives of your government ; and that this, also, can only be 
 exhibited to the emperor, or his chief officer. You may expect 
 to encounter, of course, if you get to Pekin, the old question 
 of the Kotou. In regard to the mode of managing this matter, 
 much must be left to your discretion, as circumstances may oc- 
 cur. All pains should be taken to avoid the giving of offense, 
 or the wounding of the national pride ; but, at the same time, 
 you will be careful to do nothing which may seem, even to the 
 Chinese themselves, to imply any inferiority on the part of your 
 government, or any thing less than perfect independence of all 
 nations. You will say that the government of the United States 
 is always controlled by a sense of religion and of honor ; that 
 nations differ in their religious opinions and observances ; that 
 you can not do any thing which the religion of your own coun- 
 try or its sentiments of honor forbid ; that you have the most 
 profound respect for his majesty the emperor ; that you are 
 ready to make to him all manifestations of homage which are 
 consistent with your own sense, and that you are sure his maj- 
 esty is too just to desire you to violate your own duty ; that you 
 should deem yourself quite unworthy to appear before his maj- 
 esty, as peace-bearer from a great and powerful nation, if you 
 should do any thing against religion or against honor, as under- 
 stood by the government and people in the country you come 
 from. Taking care thus in no way to allow the government or 
 people of China to consider you as tribute-bearer from your 
 government, or as acknowledging its inferiority, in any respect, 
 to that of China, or any other nation, you will bear in mind, at 
 the same time, what is due to your own personal dignity and 
 the character which you bear. You will represent to the 
 Chinese authorities, nevertheless, that you are directed to pay 
 to his majesty the emperor the same marks of respect and 
 homage as are paid by your government to his majesty the 
 Emperor of Russia, or any other of the great powers of the 
 world. 
 
 A letter signed by the President, as above intimated, and 
 
364 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 addressed to the emperor, will be placed in your hands. As 
 has been already stated, you will say that this letter can only 
 be delivered to the emperor, or to some one of the great officers 
 of state in his presence. Nevertheless, if this can not be done, 
 and the emperor should still manifest a desire to receive the 
 letter, you may consider the propriety of sending it to him, 
 upon an assurance that a friendly answer to it shall be sent, 
 signed by the hand of the emperor himself. 
 
 It will be no part of your duty to enter into controversies 
 which may exist between China and any European state ; nor 
 will you, in your communications, fail to abstain altogether 
 from any sentiment or any expression which might give to 
 other governments just cause of offense. It will be quite 
 proper, however, that you should, in a proper manner, always 
 keep before the eyes of the Chinese the high character, import- 
 ance, and power of the United States. You may speak of 
 the extent of their territory, their great commerce spread over 
 all seas, their powerful navy every where giving protection to 
 that commerce, and the numerous schools and institutions estab- 
 lished in them, to teach men knowledge and wisdom. It can 
 not be wrong for you to make known, where not known, that 
 the United States, once a country subject to England, threw 
 ofFthat subjection years ago, asserted their independence, sword 
 in hand, established that independence after a seven years' 
 war, and now meet England upon equal terms upon the ocean 
 and upon the land. The remoteness of the United States from 
 China, and still more the fact that they have no colonial pos- 
 sessions in her neighborhood, will naturally lead to the indul- 
 gence of a less suspicious and more friendly feeling than may 
 have been entertained toward England, even before the late 
 war between England and China. It can not be doubted that 
 the immense power of England in India must be regarded by 
 the Chinese government with dissatisfaction, if not with some 
 degree of alarm. You will take care to show strongly how 
 free the Chinese government may well be from all jealousy 
 arising from such causes toward the United States. Finally, 
 you will signify, in decided terms and a positive manner, that 
 the government of the United States would find it impossible 
 to remain on terms of friendship and regard with the emperor, 
 if greater privileges or commercial facilities should be allowed 
 to the subjects of any other government than should be granted 
 to citizens of the United States. 
 
 It is hoped and trusted that you will succeed in making a 
 treaty such as has been concluded between England and China ; 
 and if one containing fuller and more regular stipulations could 
 be entered into, it would be conducting Chinese intercourse one 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 365 
 
 Step further toward the principles which regulate the public 
 relations of the European and American states. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 Hon. Caleb Cushino. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Gushing. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, May 8, 1843. 
 
 Sir, — The President having appointed you commissioner to 
 China in the place of Mr. Everett, who has declined to accept 
 that appointment, this department is now to give you the neces- 
 sary instructions for your mission. 
 
 You will receive herewith two commissions : one as com- 
 missioner, under which you will be authorized to treat with 
 the governors of provinces or cities, or other local authorities 
 of China ; and one as envoy extraordinary and minister pleni- 
 potentiary, to be presented at Pekin, if you should reach the 
 emperor's court. 
 
 You will likewise be furnished with, 
 
 1. A full power, authorizing you to sign any treaty which 
 may be concluded between you and any person duly authorized 
 for that purpose by the Emperor of China. 
 
 2. A letter of credence to the emperor, with an office copy 
 thereof; the original to be communicated or delivered to the 
 sovereign in such manner as may be most convenient or agree- 
 able to his majesty to receive it. 
 
 3. A special passport for yourself and suite. 
 
 4. A letter of credit on Baring, Brothers, & Co., bankers of 
 the United States at London, authorizing them to pay your 
 drafts, from time to time, for an amount not exceeding twenty- 
 five thousand dollars. 
 
 5. A printed list of the ministers and other diplomatic and 
 consular agents of the United States abroad. 
 
 6. Laws of the United States, 9 vols., and pamphlet copies 
 of the Acts of the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh Con- 
 gresses. 
 
 7. Congressional Debates (Gales and Seaton's), 8vo, 31 vols. 
 
 8. Gales and Seaton's American State Papers, folio, 21 vols. 
 
 9. Waite's State Papers, 12mo, 12 vols. 
 
 10. Diplomatic Correspondence (Sparks's), 12mo, 19 vols. 
 
 11. Diplomatic Code (Elliott's), Svo, 2 vols. 
 
 12. American Almanac for 1843, 12mo, 1 vol. 
 
 13. Blue Book for 1841, 1 vol. 
 
 14. Commercial Regulations, 8vo, 3 vols. 
 
 15. American Archives (Force's), folio, 3 vols. 
 
 16. Secret Journals of Congress, 4 vols. 
 
 17. Journal of Federal Convention, 1 vol. 
 
366 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 18. Sixth Census of the United States, 4 vols. 
 
 19. Congressional Documents of the Second Session of the 
 Twenty-sixth Congress. 
 
 20. Congressional Documents of the First Session of the 
 Twenty-seventh Congress. 
 
 21. Senate Documents of the Second Session of the Twenty- 
 seventh Congress. 
 
 22. Printed Documents connected with the " Northeastern 
 Boundary" Negotiation. 
 
 All the printed books are for the use of the mission; and, at 
 the termination of your service, are to pass to your successor, 
 or be left with the archives in the hands of the charge d'affaires^ 
 in case one should be named, or of such other person as may be 
 designated by this department to take charge of them. 
 
 The act of Congress places at the disposition of the President 
 the sum of forty thousand dollars, as an appropriation for the 
 special expenses of this mission. But this does not include 
 such payments out of the general fund for the contingent ex- 
 penses of all the missions abroad as are usually made in the 
 case of other missions. The President directs that you be al- 
 lowed an outfit of nine thousand dollars, and a salary of nine 
 thousand dollars. In missions to Europe, the government al- 
 lows for the expenses of the minister's return a sum equal to 
 one quarter's salary. Considering the distance from the United 
 States at which diplomatic services are performed in Asia, it 
 has been thought reasonable to allow in missions in that quar- 
 ter of the world the minister's expenses in returning at the rate 
 of half a year's salary. This has been done in previous cases. 
 The return allowance is usually made out of the fund for the 
 contingent expenses of the missions abroad ; and, in case no 
 sufficient surplus should remain of the fund specially appro- 
 priated by Congress after the necessary expenditures in China, 
 you are authorized to draw on this department for your return 
 allowance, as above stated. The secretary of the mission, Mr. 
 Fletcher Webster, already appointed, will be allowed a salary 
 at the rate of four thousand five hundred dollars a year. An 
 advance has been made to him, partly toward his own com- 
 pensation, and partly to enable him to make some necessary 
 preparations for the objects of the mission, as you will see by 
 his instructions, a copy of which you will herewith receive. 
 The necessary traveling expenses of yourself and suite from 
 place to place while in China, when you can not be conven- 
 iently conveyed by the squadron, will be allowed. Your salary 
 will commence from the date of your commission, if you pro- 
 ceed on your mission within ninety days from that time. It is 
 difficult to give you any rule respecting contingencies in a 
 service so new, and in a country so remote. It may be neces- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 367 
 
 sary, or, at least, highly useful, that a draughtsman should ac- 
 company you, and also some young gentleman in the character 
 of physician. It is desired that you make such inquiries as 
 may show whether the services of such persons can be obtain- 
 ed at small expense. 
 
 A number of young gentlemen have applied to be unpaid at- 
 taches to the mission. It will add dignity and importance to 
 the occasion, if your suite could be made respectable in num- 
 ber, by accepting such offers of attendance without expense to 
 the government. 
 
 Of course, you will need the service of one or more inter- 
 preters. These you may engage either in Europe or in China, 
 or wherever, in your own judgment, you can find persons most 
 competent. The squadron destined for service in the Asiatic 
 seas, and which, it is understood, will carry you out to China, 
 will consist of the frigate Brandywine, sloop of war St. Louis, 
 and the steam-frigate Missouri. These vessels will be ready 
 to proceed immediately from Norfolk, and will have instruc- 
 tions to take up the mission at Bombay. 
 
 The Secretary of the Navy will give the proper directions for 
 the accommodation on board the vessels of such gentlemen at- 
 tached to the mission as may be ready to go with the squadron. 
 
 The Navy Department will also cause proper instructions to 
 be given to Commodore Parker, commanding the squadron, for 
 carrying into effect the objects of government in this important 
 mission. 
 
 In another paper of this date you will receive further instruc- 
 tions respecting the great political objects of the mission, and 
 the means supposed to be most likely to accomplish them. 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Caleb Gushing, Esq., appointed Commissioner of the United States to China. 
 
 The President's Letter to the Emperor. 
 
 I, John Tyler, President of the United States of America — 
 which states are : Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 South'Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, 
 Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, and 
 Michigan — send you this letter of peace and friendship, signed 
 by my own hand. 
 
 I hope your health is good. China is a great empire, ex- 
 tending over a great part of the world. The Chinese are 
 numerous. You have millions and millions of subjects. The 
 twenty-six United States are as large as China, though our 
 people are not so numerous. The rising sun looks upon the 
 
368 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 great mountains and great rivers of China. When he sets, he 
 looks upon rivers and mountains equally large in the United 
 States. Our territories extend from one great ocean to the 
 other ; and on the west we are divided from your dominions 
 only by the sea. Leaving the mouth of one of our great rivers, 
 and going constantly toward the setting sun, we sail to Japan 
 and to the Yellow Sea. 
 
 Now my words are, that the governments of two such great 
 countries should be at peace. It is proper, and according to 
 the will of Heaven, that they should respect each other, and 
 act wisely. I, therefore, send to your court Caleb Cushing, one 
 of the wise and learned men of this country. On his first ar- 
 rival in China, he will inquire for your health. He has then 
 strict orders to go to your great city of Pekin, and there to de- 
 liver this letter. He will have with him secretaries and inter- 
 preters. 
 
 The Chinese love to trade with our people, and to sell them 
 tea and silk, for which our people pay silver, and sometimes 
 other articles. But if the Chinese and the Americans will 
 trade, there should be rules, so that they shall not break your 
 laws nor our laws. Our minister, Caleb Cushing, is authorized 
 to make a treaty to regulate trade. Let it be just. Let there 
 be no unfair advantage on either side. Let the people trade 
 not only at Canton, but also at Amoy, Ning-po, Shang-hai, Fu- 
 chow, and all such other places as may offer profitable ex- 
 changes both to China and the United States, provided they 
 do not break your laws nor our laws. We shall not take the 
 part of evil-doers. We shall not uphold them that break your 
 laws. Therefore, we doubt not that you will be pleased that 
 our messenger of peace, with this letter in his hand, shall come 
 to Pekin, and there deliver it ; and that your great officers will, 
 by your order, make a treaty with him to regulate affiiirs of 
 trade, so that nothing may happen to disturb the peace between 
 China and America. Let the treaty be signed by your own 
 imperial hand. It shall be signed by mine, by the authority of 
 our great council, the Senate. 
 
 And so may your health be good, and may peace reign. 
 
 Written at Washington, this twelfth day of July, in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three. 
 
 Your good friend, John Tyler. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 A. P. Upshur, Secretary of State. 
 
 This letter is dated July 12, and countersigned by Mr. Up- 
 shur, Mr. Webster having then left the department. But it was 
 written by Mr, Webster, and the original is now on file, in the 
 Department of State, in his hand-writing. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 369 
 
 The President's Letter to the Emperor. 
 
 Great and Good Friend, — I have made choice of Caleb 
 Gushing, one of our distinguished citizens, to reside near your 
 majesty in the quality of envoy extraordinary and minister 
 plenipotentiary of the United States of America. He is well 
 informed of the relative interests of the two countries, and our 
 sincere desire to cultivate friendship and good correspondence 
 between us ; and, from a knowledge of his fidelity and good 
 conduct, I have entire confidence that he will render himself 
 acceptable to your majesty, by his constant endeavors to pre- 
 serve and advance the interests and happiness of both nations. 
 I therefore request your majesty to receive him favorably, and 
 to give full credence to whatever he shall say on the part of 
 the United States, and most of all when he shall assure you of 
 their friendship and wishes for your prosperity. And I pray 
 God to have you in His safe and holy keeping. 
 
 Written at the city of Washington, the twelfth day of July, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 three. Your good friend, John Tyler. 
 By the President : 
 
 A. P. Upshur, Secretary of State. 
 
 Messrs. Richards and Haalilio to the Secretary of State. 
 
 Washikoton, December 14, ISIS. 
 
 Sir, — The undersigned having been duly commissioned by 
 his majesty, Kamehameha III., king of all the Hawaiian Islands, 
 to represent his government, and promote its intei'ests in the 
 United States, wish to call the attention of your government to 
 the existing relations between the two countries. 
 
 In the year 1826 articles of agreement, in the form of a treaty, 
 were entered into between his majesty's government and 
 Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, commanding the United States 
 sloop-of-war Peacock. His majesty has never received any 
 notice of that treaty's being ratified, nor intimation that it was 
 approved by the government of the United States. His majesty 
 has. nevertheless, during the last sixteen years governed him- 
 self by the regulations of that treaty, in all his intercourse with 
 citizens of the United States. 
 
 Subsequently to the above, similar forms of agreement have 
 been entered into between his majesty and officers command- 
 ing vessels of war of different nations of Europe ; but, so far 
 as is known to the undersigned, those agreements have never 
 received the sanction of their several governments. 
 
 These facts, viewed in connection with their attendant cir- 
 cumstances, have led his majesty to feel considerable embar- 
 rassment in managing his foreign relations, and has awakened 
 
 A A 
 
370 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 the very strong desire that his kingdom should be formally 
 acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sover- 
 eign and independent state. 
 
 His majesty considers that this acknowledgment has already 
 been tacitly but virtually made, both in the United States and 
 Europe, by the appointment of consuls and commercial agents 
 to reside in his dominions, and by the formal manner in which 
 the commanders of national vessels have transacted business 
 with him, many of whom have professedly acted under the ex- 
 press instructions of their several governments. But he is 
 nevertheless of opinion that the time has now arrived when 
 both the interest and the honor of his kingdom demand a more 
 formal acknowledgment than has hitherto been made by any 
 foreign government. It is his majesty's request that the gov- 
 ernment of the United States will take into consideration the 
 nature, the extent, and the rapidity of those changes .which 
 have taken place in his dominions during the last few years ; 
 changes which he has the happiness to believe are honorable, 
 both to his government and to the people over whom it rules. 
 
 Twenty-three years ago the nation had no written language, 
 and no character in which to write it. The language had 
 never been systematized nor reduced to any kind of form. The 
 people had no acquaintance with Christianity, nor with the val- 
 uable institutions or usages of civilized life. The nation had 
 no fixed form or regulations of government, except as they 
 were dictated by those who were in authority, or might by any 
 means acquire power. The right of property was not ac- 
 knowledged, and was therefore but partially enjoyed ; there 
 were no courts of justice, and the will of the chieftains was ab- 
 solute. The property of foreigners had no protection, except 
 in the kind disposition of individuals. But, under the fostering 
 influence, patronage, and care of his majesty, and that of his 
 predecessors, the language has been reduced to visible and 
 systematized form, and is now written by a large and respect- 
 able proportion of the people. Schools have been established 
 throughout his dominions, and are supported principally by the 
 government; and there are but few, among the younger peo- 
 ple, who are unable to read. They have now, in their own 
 language, a library embracing a considerable variety of books, 
 on a variety of subjects, including the Holy Scriptures, works 
 on natural history, civil history, church history, geography, 
 political economy, mathematics, and statute law ; besides a 
 number of elementary books. A regular monarchical govern- 
 ment has been organized, of a limited and representative char- 
 acter, a translation of the Constitution of which we herewith 
 transmit. A code of laws, both civil and criminal, has been 
 enacted and published. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 371 
 
 The Legislature holds an annual meeting for the purpose of 
 adding to and amending this code. Courts of justice have been 
 established, and regular trials by jury required in all important 
 cases. Foreigners of different nations have testified their con- 
 fidence in these courts, by bringing suits in cases where many 
 thousands of dollars worth of property was involved, and that, 
 too, in cases when, with but very short delay, they could have 
 been carried before the courts of other countries. 
 
 It has, moreover, been the uniform practice of consuls and 
 commercial agents, resident in his majesty's dominions, and 
 also of all commanders of national vessels visiting those domin- 
 ions, to demand all that protection, both of person and prop- 
 erty, which is demanded of sovereign and independent states ; 
 and this his majesty believes has been duly and efficiently ex- 
 tended. While, therefore, all is demanded of his government, 
 and all is rendered by it, which is demanded of or rendered by 
 the governments of sovereign and independent states, he feels 
 that he has a right to expect his state to be acknowledged as 
 such, and thus be formally received into the general compact 
 of sovereign nations. In the request which his majesty hereby 
 makes to the government of the United States, he has, of course, 
 for his direct object the promotion of the interest of his own 
 kingdom ; but he is also very fully convinced that the important 
 interests of all the great commercial nations will also be mate- 
 rially subserved by his dominions remaining, as they have hith- 
 erto been, independent. 
 
 Their position is such that they constitute the great center 
 of the whale fishery for most of the world. They are on the 
 principal line of communication between the western continent 
 of America and the eastern continent of Asia ; and such are the 
 prevailing winds on that ocean, that all vessels requiring re- 
 pairs or supplies, either of provisions or of water, naturally 
 touch at those islands, whether the vessels sail from Columbia 
 River on the north, or from the far-distant ports of Mexico, 
 Central America, or Peru upon the south ; and it should be 
 further added, that there is no other place in all that part of the 
 Pacific Ocean where repairs of vessels can be made to so good 
 an advantage, or supplies be obtained in such abundance, and 
 on so favorable terms. 
 
 His majesty wishes, also, to I'emind the government of the 
 United States, that the amount of property belonging to their 
 citizens, which is either landed at, or enters the various harbors 
 and roadsteads of his dominions, and is consequently more or 
 less dependent on the protection of his government, can not be 
 less than from five to seven millions of dollars annually. This 
 property lies in some ninety or a hundred whaling ships and 
 their cargoes, and in some twelve or fifteen merchant vessels, 
 
372 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 besides, also, a considerable amount of other property belonging 
 to American citizens on shore. At some seasons there have 
 been not less than three or four millions of dollars worth of 
 American property, and some fourteen hundred American cit- 
 izens, at the same time at the various parts of the island, requir- 
 ing consequently, in some degree, the protection of his majesty; 
 and he has the happiness of believing that efficient and satis- 
 factory aid has always been extended to those who have re- 
 quired it. In evidence corroborative of many of the facts 
 herein stated, the undersigned do not hesitate to refer to docu- 
 mentary evidence, which they believe must be among the 
 papers in your Department of State, recently furnished by 
 masters of national vessels, but more especially by the United 
 States commercial agent residing at Honolulu. 
 
 His majesty is also desirous that there should be a definite 
 arrangement for the settlement of any future difficulties which 
 may unhappily arise, and which, between sovereign and inde- 
 pendent nations, would ordinarily be the subject of diplomatic 
 correspondence. To carry into effect these desirable objects, 
 the undersigned are authorized by his majesty, Kamehameha 
 III., to enter into negotiation with the authorities of the United 
 States, by convention, treaty, or otherwise, whenever the latter 
 shall acknowledge the sovereignty of the former ; and, as evi- 
 dence that the undersigned are thus authorized, they are pre- 
 pared to present official papers from his majesty, whenever the 
 way is open for them to be received. 
 
 The undersigned will further state, that they are directed to 
 proceed from the United States to Europe, for the purpose of 
 obtaining from some of the principal governments there the 
 same acknowledgments which it is the object of this letter to 
 obtain from the government of the United States. 
 
 Accept, sir, the assurances of the high consideration with 
 which the undersigned have the honor to be your obedient 
 servants, Timoteo Haalilio, 
 
 William Richards. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 
 
 The Secretary of State to the Agents of the Sandwich Islands. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, December 19, 1842. 
 
 Gentlemen, — I have received the letter which you did me 
 the honor to address to me, under date of the 14th instant, 
 stating that you had been commissioned to represent, in the 
 United States, the government of the Hawaiian Islands, invit- 
 ing the attention of this government to the relations between 
 the two countries, and intimating a desire for a recognition of 
 the Hawaiian government by that of the United States. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFPICIAL PAPERS. 373 
 
 Your communication has been laid before the President, and 
 by him considered. 
 
 The advantages of your country to navigators in the Pa- 
 cific, and in particular to the numerous vessels and vast ton- 
 nage of the United States frequenting that sea, are fully esti- 
 mated ; and just acknowledgments are due to the government 
 and inhabitants of the islands for their numerous acts of hospi- 
 tality to the citizens of the United States. 
 
 Tiie United States have regarded the existing authorities in 
 the Sandwich Islands as a government suited to the condition 
 of the people, and resting on their own choice ; and the Presi- 
 dent is of opinion that the interests of all commercial nations 
 require that that government should not be interfered with by 
 foreign powers. Of the vessels which visit the islands, it is 
 known that a great majority belongs to the United States. The 
 United States, therefore, are more interested in the fate of the 
 islands, and of their government, than any other nation can be ; 
 and this consideration induces the President to be quite willing 
 to declare, as the sense of the government of the United States, 
 that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be re- 
 spected ; that no power ought either to take possession of the 
 islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization ; and 
 that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the 
 existing government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences 
 with it in matters of commerce. 
 
 Entertaining these sentiments, the President does not see any 
 present necessity for the negotiation of a formal treaty, or the 
 appointment or reception of diplomatic characters. A consul, 
 or agent, from this government will continue to reside in the 
 islands. He will receive particular instructions to pay just and 
 careful attention to any claims or complaints which may be 
 brought against the government or people of the islands by cit- 
 izens of the United States, and he will also be instructed to re- 
 ceive any complaint which may be made by that government, 
 for acts of individuals (citizens of the United States), on account 
 of which the interference of this government may be requested, 
 and to transmit such complaint to this department. 
 
 It is not improbable that this correspondence may be made 
 the subject of a communication to Congress ; and it will be 
 officially made known to the governments of the principal com- 
 mercial powers of Europe. 
 
 I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Messrs. Timoteo Haalilio and William Richards, Washington. 
 
374 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE 
 UNITED STATES AND PORTUGAL, RESPECTING 
 DUTIES AT THE CUSTOM HOUSE. 
 
 Mr. Figaniere e Morao to Mr. Webster. — [copy.] 
 
 Philadelphia, November 18, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned, a member of her majesty's council, and 
 minister resident of Portugal in the United States of America, 
 by direction of his government, has the honor to address him- 
 self to the Honorable Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of 
 the United States, in order to lay before him, for the consider- 
 ation of the American government, and its consequent action 
 at the next session of the legislative body of the Union, the fol- 
 lowing observations respecting the bill concei^ning duties and 
 drawbacks, reported to the House of Representatives at the 
 late session of Congress. 
 
 The attention of her majesty's government was called to the 
 bill in question in consequence of its purporting to lay aside 
 the principle heretofore and for a long period followed in the 
 United States, of imposing specific duties on wines and spirit- 
 uous liquors, on their introduction into this country, and sub- 
 stituting an ad valorem duty, which could not be viewed with 
 indifference by the government of Portugal, inasmuch as the 
 proposed change, which has since been effected by the subse- 
 quent passage of said bill in both Houses, and its approval by 
 the President on the 11th of September last, is certainly high- 
 ly detrimental to the consumption of Portuguese wines in this 
 country, and consequently prejudicial to the commercial inter- 
 course of the two nations, which has so shortly ago, and with 
 reciprocal satisfaction, been fixed upon a liberal basis in the 
 treaty signed at Lisbon on the 20th of August, 1840. 
 
 When that treaty was under negotiation, and at its termina- 
 tion, the duties on wines (the principal export of Portugal) 
 were then, and continued to be, specifically levied in the United 
 States ; nor was it at that time intended, to the knowledge of 
 the queen's government, that the system then followed would 
 so soon and unexpectedly be changed, to the great injury of 
 the Portuguese staple. Moreover, it is argued, the operation 
 of the act in question infringes, if not the letter, the spirit of 
 the said treaty, which violation was surely never contemplated 
 by either the legislative or executive branch of the United 
 States government. Nevertheless, the fact appears evident, 
 when it is taken into consideration that the wines of Portugal, 
 from their nature, and peculiar, unavoidable circumstances, 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 375 
 
 can only reach this country at a comparatively higher cost 
 than the wines of other countries, and of course be subjected 
 to a higher duty, according to the act of Congress, than the 
 like wines of those other countries, and consetiuently contrary 
 to tlie provision of the 3d article of the treaty of 1810, which 
 would not be the case if the duty were specilic, as before the 
 passage of the act. 
 
 In order to show the different effects of the two modes of 
 imposing duties on wines, the undersigned begs to call Mr. 
 Webster's attention to the following illustration of them. A 
 pipe of wine from the Mediterranean, Spain, or any other 
 country, reaches a port in the United States at a cost (let it be 
 supposed) of 30 cents the gallon, and a like pipe of wine from 
 Portugal costing say 38 cents the gallon. If the duty be spe- 
 cific (for instance, 15 cents), they will both be subjected to the 
 same, and neither pay a higher or other duty than the other ; 
 for fifteen cents per gallon, and no more, would be levied upon 
 both pipes. Not so, however, according to the act of the 11th 
 of September last, which imposes twenty per cent, ad valorem. 
 The Spanish or other wine will pay only six cents per gallon, 
 while j'rom the like wine of Portugal will be exacted 'l(j%% cents 
 per gallon, which, de facto, operates as a discriminating duty 
 against the Portuguese wines, contrary to the stipulations of 
 the treaty between the two countries. 
 
 The undersigned will not, on this occasion, multiply argu- 
 ments to prove the injurious effect the act referred to will 
 have upon the wines of his country, and upon its commerce 
 generally with the United States, should the present mode of 
 levying the duties upon wines and spirituous liquors be con- 
 tinued. He flatters himself that the plain statement now of- 
 fered, together with the verbal observations he very lately had 
 the honor to submit to Mr. Webster upon the same subject, 
 will convince him of the fitness of the alteration proposed, in 
 order that the treaty referred to be not virtually rendered 
 void, but available, as the two governments intend, for the 
 benefit both of Portugal and the United States. 
 
 The minister of Portugal avails himself of this opportunity 
 to reiterate to the honorable Secretary of State the assurance 
 of his distinguished consideration and esteem. 
 
 De Figaniere e Morao. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State of the United Stales. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Figaniere e Morao. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, Fehruary 9, 1842. 
 
 The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, 
 has the honor to acknowledge Mr. De Figaniere e Morao's 
 note of the 18th of November, and has given to it the consid- 
 
376 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 eration due to its importance, and to the friendly relations 
 happily subsisting between the two governments. 
 
 The undersigned regrets that the government of Portugal 
 should suppose that it has reason to complain, in any manner, 
 of a law of the United States as being prejudicial to Portugal, 
 or at variance with the amity and good-will subsisting between 
 the two countries, and especially as inconsistent with the treaty 
 obligations of the United States. 
 
 The law complained of was enacted on the 11th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1841 ; and its main provision was, to lay a duty of 20 
 per cent, ad valorem on all such articles as were at that time 
 free, or on which the duty was less than that rate, with cer- 
 tain exceptions. The wines of Portugal not being within the 
 exceptions, and being subject at that time only to a specific 
 duty, may fall under an increased charge or duty by the op- 
 eration of this law. 
 
 The third article of the treaty subsisting between the United 
 States and Portugal is in these words : 
 
 " No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importa- 
 tion into the kingdom and possessions of Portugal of any arti- 
 cle, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States 
 of America ; and no higher or other duties shall be imposed 
 on the importation into the United States of America of any 
 article, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the kingdom 
 and possessions of Portugal, than such as are or shall be pay- 
 able on the like article, being the growth, produce, or manu- 
 facture of any other foreign country. 
 
 " Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the importation 
 or exportation of any article, the growth, produce, or manu- 
 facture of the United States of America, or of the kingdom 
 and possessions of Portugal, to or from the ports of the said 
 kingdom and possessions of Portugal, or of the said States, 
 which shall not equally extend to all other foreign nations. 
 
 " Nor shall any higher or other duties or charges be im- 
 posed, in either of the two countries, on the exportation of any 
 articles to the United States of America or to the kingdom of 
 Portugal, respectively, than such as are payable on the ex- 
 portation of the like articles to any other foreign country. 
 
 " Provided, however, that nothing contained in this article 
 shall be understood or intended to interfere with the stipulation 
 entered into by the United States of America, for a special 
 equivalent, in regard to French wines, in the convention made 
 by the said States and France on the fourth day of July, in 
 the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
 one, which stipulation will expire and cease to have effect in 
 the month of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and forty-two." 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 377 
 
 Mr. De Figaniere e Morao thinks that the provision of this ar- 
 ticle is interfered with by the above-mentioned act of Congress. 
 He illustrates his ow^n view of the subject by putting a case 
 in the following form : 
 
 " A pipe of wine from the Mediterranean, or Spain, or any 
 other country, reaches a port in the United States at a cost 
 (let it be supposed) of 30 cents the gallon, and a like pipe of 
 wine from Portugal costing 38 cents per gallon. If the duty 
 be specific, say 15 cents, they will both be subject to the same, 
 and neither pay a higher or other duty than the other ; for fif- 
 teen cents per gallon, and no more, would be levied on both 
 pipes. Not so, however, according to the act of the 11th of 
 September last, which imposes 20 per cent, ad valorem. The 
 Spanish or other wine will pay only six cents per gallon, while 
 from the like wine of Portugal will be exacted 7yV^ cents per 
 gallon, which, de facto, operates as a discriminating duty against- 
 the Portuguese wine, contrary to the stipulations of the treaty 
 between the two countries." 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the argument and illustration 
 thus advanced, the undersigned avails himself of the opportu- 
 nity of stating to Mr. De Figaniere e Morao, that the language 
 in the third article of the treaty between the United States 
 and his government is of the same import with that used in 
 most other treaties of the United States with foreign powers, 
 and identical with that employed in some of them ; and that no 
 complaint has ever been made to this government by the gov- 
 ernments with whom such treaties have existed of any injury, 
 injustice, or want of strict compliance with treaty stipulations 
 on any such ground as has been now taken by the Portuguese 
 government. It will be at once obvious, therefore, to Mr. De 
 Figaniere e Morao that the government of the United States 
 must take such a view of the question as it can maintain not 
 only in regard to Portugal, but many other powers also. 
 
 The interdict of the treaty is, 
 
 " No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importa- 
 tion into the United States of America, of any article, the 
 growth, produce, or manufacture of the kingdom and posses- 
 sions of Portugal, than such as are or shall be payable on the 
 like article, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any 
 other foreign country." 
 
 The article on which the duty complained of is laid is wine ; 
 and the duty laid on Portuguese wine is exactly the same, in 
 terms, as that laid on the like article (except as excepted in the 
 law) coming from other countries. In other words, all wines 
 fall under the same duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem. In terms, 
 therefore, the law is clearly within the treaty. 
 
 But Mr. De Figaniere e Morao thinks it not in conformity 
 
378 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 with the sph-it and intent of the treaty, because, under its op- 
 eration, a gallon of wine in Portugal may cost more than a 
 gallon of wine in Spain, and, therefore, 20 per cent, on the cost 
 of the gallon of Portuguese wine will be more than 20 per cent, 
 on that of the Spanish wine ; and, consequently, a gallon of 
 Portuguese wine will pay a higher duty than a gallon of Span- 
 ish wine. That this may be the result of the operation of the 
 law can not be denied ; and this makes it necessary to in- 
 quire, what is the true interpretation of this third article of the 
 treaty ? 
 
 There may sometimes be difficulty, without doubt, in decid- 
 ing on the just extent of such a provision, and in applying it, 
 in the legislation of states bound to regard it ; because, in 
 general, articles identically the same, or in the language of the 
 treaty alike, are seldom imported from difterent countries. 
 Yet the provision itself is to be observed, and is to receive a 
 reasonable and just construction. This is the leading rule of 
 interpretation in regard to all treaties and other important 
 compacts. Now it is evident, that if Mr. De Figaniere e Mo- 
 rao's idea be correct, the government of the United States 
 could impose no ad valorem duty whatever, because, as articles 
 bearing the same general name, and imported from different 
 countries, would, of course, be of different degrees of value 
 and cost, the country producing those of highest value would 
 always have cause of complaint, if subjected to an ad valorem 
 duty. The result would be, that the government of the United 
 States could not exercise its powers at all, in one of the most 
 ordinary modes of taxation. As this consequence would be 
 unreasonable, and evidently not within the contemplation of 
 the parties, the reasoning which would conduct us to it must 
 be rejected. 
 
 We are to consider, then, what is the just meaning of the 
 terms " other or higher duties," and to inquire by what stand- 
 ard it is to be known and ascertained whether duties " other 
 and higher" are laid in a given case. Now, to accomplish 
 this, resort must be had to some measure of comparison, simple 
 or mixed ; some rule by which the question is to be decided. 
 What is that rule? What is the standard of comparison? Is 
 some one single consideration to fix that standard, or may ref- 
 erence be had to various considerations ? Mr. De Figaniere 
 e Morao's idea is, that the only element of calculation, the only 
 datum to be taken into view, is the quantity of the article ; 
 that is to say, he is of opinion that if one gallon pays more duty 
 than another gallon, the duty is, for that reason alone, higher, in 
 the sense of the treaty. But the undersigned thinks, with all 
 respect, that this may well be questioned ; he thinks cost and 
 value may be regarded as forming parts of the basis of calcu- 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERg. 379 
 
 lation and comparison, as well as quantity. It is as reasonable, 
 as seems to him, to understand the treaty as saying that mer- 
 chandise from Portugal shall pay no higher duties than similar 
 merchandise from other countries, according to its value, as it 
 is to understand it as saying that it shall pay no higher duties 
 in proportion to its quantity. Cost and value are as reasona- 
 ble a basis as mere measure, weight, or quantity, in deciding 
 on the comparison of duties. Indeed, it appears to the un- 
 dersigned that ad valorem duties are likely to be the most un- 
 exceptionable of all forms of imposts, so far as stipulations 
 in treaties, like that now under consideration, are concern- 
 ed. When duties are made specific, they are laid on differ- 
 ent classes of the same general article at different rates, ac- 
 cording to their respective degrees of cost or value. Cheap 
 wines are not taxed so high as dearer wines ; nor can it be 
 considered as any purpose of the treaty to abolish such dis- 
 tinctions ; so that cost and value ordinarily constitute either 
 the whole or part of the ground upon which rates of duties 
 are fixed. In the case stated by Mr. De Figaniere e Morao, 
 the Portuguese wine is assumed as the more costly article. 
 But we may well suppose an opposite case, and a case of spe- 
 cific duties of exactly the same nominal amount, and yet a 
 case in which, as it appears to the undersigned, Portugal might 
 complain with far greater appearance of reason than she now 
 complains of the law of September. There are wines of Port- 
 ugal, of large consumption, which cost much less than certain 
 wines of France. Let us suppose that a wine of Lisbon cost 
 50 cents a gallon, and a wine of Bordeaux one dollar, and that 
 each was taxed equally one dollar a gallon in the ports of the 
 United States. Here would be an apparent equality, just such 
 as Mr. De Figaniere e Morao now thinks ought to exist. But 
 would there be real equality? Might not the Portuguese pro- 
 ducer say that he did not enjoy, substantially, the same ad- 
 vantage as his French competitor, inasmuch as his capital and 
 labor, producing an article in greater quantity, but of lower 
 price, were really subjected to a burden twice as great as that 
 which fell on the labor and capital of the French producer? 
 Might he not say, suffer my product, according to its cost and 
 value, to be received into the country upon the same terms, 
 and not other or higher, as the products of other countries ? 
 The stipulation contained in the third article of the treaty be- 
 tween the United States and Portugal, and in other treaties to 
 which the United States are parties, is just and liberal, and 
 ought to be observed to the fullest practicable extent ; but per- 
 haps it may be found that it is necessarily circumscribed within 
 certain limits, and subjected to qualifications. And this results 
 from the fact that, in a commercial sense, and according to the 
 
380 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 common understanding of men, the generic word " article" is 
 subdivisible, and its subdivisions are as well known, and are 
 regarded in as independent and substantive a sense as the 
 generic term itself. 
 
 Wine is an article of commerce ; but the wine of Oporto, 
 wine of Bordeaux, wine of Madeira, wine of Sicily, are sepa- 
 rate articles ; so regarded in transactions of commerce, so re- 
 garded in the duty laws of various governments, and especially 
 in those of the United States. 
 
 It would, therefore, not be considered as any infraction of 
 the treaty with Portugal, if Oporto wines were subjected to 
 one duty and Sicily wines to another, since they are, in 
 commercial understanding, different articles. And it may be 
 added, that difference in cost or value may, in many cases, very 
 materially contribute to settle the question of identity or differ- 
 ence between two articles ; that is to say, in deciding whether 
 two articles are the same, or alike, as the phrase of the treaty 
 is, reference to the cost of each may be very pertinent and 
 important. For example, the teas of China have heretofore 
 been subject to different rates of duties in the United States as 
 separate articles, under separate and specific denominations, 
 as Bohea, Congo, Hyson, &c. Now in a disputed case, whether 
 a particular article of that general kind belonged to one or the 
 other of these classes, would be an inquiry, in the prosecution 
 of which one important element of proof and ground of decis- 
 ion would naturally be the cost of the article, the more especial- 
 ly if the classes bore a considerable resemblance to each other, 
 as is the case with some of them. So, if articles bearing the 
 same general name come from different countries, whether they 
 ought to be regarded as the same article, is a question for the 
 solution of which one may look not only to the name, but to 
 their cost and value. And this consideration appears to the 
 undersigned to show, he presumes to say, almost conclusively, 
 that if the duty in a given case be ad valorem, it is, of all forms 
 of laying duties, that which is most strictly in accordance with 
 the provisions of treaties, such as that between the United 
 States and Portugal. 
 
 The article of the treaty under consideration was designed 
 as a stipulation that no unfriendly legislation should be resort- 
 ed to by one party against the other, nor any preference given 
 to the products of other countries, with intent to injure or prej- 
 udice either party to the treaty. The treaty enjoins the spirit 
 and practice of fair and equal legislation ; but neither party 
 supposed itself precluded by its stipulations from the ordinary 
 modes of exercising its own power of making law for raising 
 revenue in its accustomed modes ; and if it happen, in any 
 case, that, from the operation of laws thus laid with fair intent 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 381 
 
 and for necessary purposes, inconveniences result to either 
 party, that result must be considered as not intended, but as 
 arising from the nature of the case itself, and therefore as un- 
 avoidable. 
 
 These are the general views which have presented them- 
 selves to the undersigned in answer to Mr. Dc Figaniere e 
 Morao's note, and he trusts that the government of Portugal 
 will consider tliem as satisfactory. Portugal is one of the 
 countries with which the United States, in taking their place 
 in the circle of nations, had early friendly commercial and dip- 
 lomatic intercourse. Happily, nothing has occurred perma- 
 nently to disturb that intercourse. The two countries have no 
 rivalries, no opposition of interests, no grounds of mutual dis- 
 trust ; and the undersigned avails himself of this opportunity 
 to express his earnest hope, that the harmony now insured by 
 the stipulations of a fair and equal treaty may long continue, 
 and to signify, at the same time, the high consideration with 
 which he has the honor to regard Mr. De Figaniere e Morao. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
382 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 SOUND DUES AT ELSINORE, AND THE ZOLL 
 VEREIN UNION. 
 
 Extract from the President^ s Message, June 1, 1841. 
 The Secretary of State has addressed to me a paper upon 
 two subjects, interesting to the commerce of the country, which 
 will receive my consideration, and which 1 have the honor to 
 communicate to Congress. 
 
 Mr. Webster to the President of the United States. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, May 24, 1841. 
 
 Sir, — There are two subjects connected with the foreign 
 commerce of the United States to which the Secretary of State 
 considers it to be his duty to call the attention of the President 
 at the earliest opportunity. 
 
 The first is, the collection of Sound dues, or the tax payable 
 at Elsinore, laid by the Danish government upon the cargoes 
 of vessels passing through the Sound, into and out from the 
 Baltic Sea. 
 
 The right of Denmark to levy these dues is asserted on the 
 ground of ancient usage, coming down from the period when 
 that power had possession of both shores of the Belt and Sound. 
 However questionable the right or uncertain its origin, it has 
 been recognized by European governments in several treaties 
 with Denmark, some of them entered into at as early a period 
 as the fourteenth century ; and inasmuch as our treaty with 
 that power contains a clause putting us on the same footing, in 
 this respect, as other the most favored nations, it has been ac- 
 quiesced in, or, rather, has not been denied, by us. 
 
 The treaty of 1645, between Denmark and Holland, to which 
 a tariff of the principal articles then known in commerce, with 
 a rule of measurement and a fixed rate of duty, was appended, 
 together with the subsequent one between the same parties in 
 1701, amendatory and explanatory of the former, has been 
 generally considered as the basis of all subsequent treaties, and 
 among them of our own, concluded in 1826, and limited to con- 
 tinue ten years from its date, and further until the end of one 
 year after notice by either party of an intention to terminate 
 it, and which is still in force. 
 
 Treaties have also been concluded with Denmark by Great 
 Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, and Brazil, 
 by which, with one or two exceptions in their favor, they are 
 placed on the same footing as the United States. 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 383 
 
 There has recently been a general movement, on the part 
 of the northern powers of Europe, with regard to the subject 
 of these Sound dues, which seems to afford to this govern- 
 ment a favorable opportunity, in conjunction with them, for ex- 
 erting itself to obtain some such alteration or modification of 
 existing regulations as shall conduce to the freedom and ex- 
 tension of our commerce, or, at least, toward relieving it from 
 some of the burdens now imposed, which, owing to the nature 
 of our trade, operate, in many instances, very unequally and 
 unjustly on it in comparison with that of other nations. 
 
 The ancient tariff of 1645, by which the payment of these 
 dues was regulated, has never been revised, and by means of 
 the various changes which have taken place in commerce since 
 that period, and of the alteration in price in many articles 
 therein included, chiefly in consequence of the settlement of 
 America, and the introduction of her products into general 
 commerce, it has become quite inapplicable. 
 
 It is presumed to have been the intention of the framers of 
 that tariff to fix a duty of about one per centum ad valorem 
 upon the articles therein enumerated ; but the change in value 
 of many of those commodities, and the absence of any corre- 
 sponding change in the duty, has, in many instances, increased 
 the ad valorem from one per centum to three, four, and even 
 seven ; and this, generally, upon those articles which form the 
 chief exports of the United States, of South America, and the 
 West India Islands : such as the articles of cotton, rice, raw 
 sugar, tobacco, rum, Campeachy wood, &c. 
 
 On all articles not enumerated in this ancient tariff it is stip- 
 ulated, by the treaty of 1701, that the " privileged nations," or 
 those who have treaties with Denmark, shall pay an ad valo- 
 rem of one per cent. ; but the value of these articles being fixed 
 by some rules known only to the Danish government, or at 
 least unknown to us, this duty appears uncertain and fluctu- 
 ating, and its estimate is very much left to the arbitrary dis- 
 cretion of the custom-house officers at Elsinore. 
 
 It has been, by some of the public writers in Denmark, con- 
 tended that goods of privileged nations, carried in the vessels 
 of unprivileged nations, should not be entitled to the limitation 
 of one per centum ad valorem, but should be taxed one and a 
 ([uarter per centum, the amount levied on the goods of unpriv- 
 ileged nations ; and, also, that this limitation should be confined 
 to the direct trade ; so that vessels coming from or bound to 
 the ports of a nation not in treaty with Denmark should pay 
 on their cargoes the additional quarter per cent. 
 
 These questions, although the former is not of so much con- 
 sequence to us, who are our own carriers, are still, in con- 
 nection with each other, of sufficient importance to render a 
 
384 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 decision upon them, and a final understanding, extremely de- 
 sirable. 
 
 These Sound dues are, moreover, in addition to the port 
 charges of light money, pass money, &c., which are quite equal 
 to the rates charged at other places, and the payment of which, 
 together with the Sound dues, often causes to vessels consider- 
 able delay at Elsinore. 
 
 The port charges, which are usual among all nations to 
 whose ports vessels resort, are unobjectionable, except that, in 
 this case, they are mere consequences of the imposition of the 
 Sound dues, following, necessarily, upon the compulsory delay 
 at Elsinore of vessels bound up and down the Sound with car- 
 goes, with no intention of making any importation into any 
 port of Denmark, and having no other occasion for delay at 
 Elsinore than that which arises from the necessity of paying 
 the Sound dues, and, in so doing, involuntarily subjecting them- 
 selves to these other demands. 
 
 These port duties would appear to have some reason in 
 them, because of the equivalent; while, in fact, they are made 
 requisite, with the exception, perhaps, of the expense of lights, 
 by the delay necessary for the payment of the Sound dues. 
 
 The amount of our commerce with Denmark, direct, is in- 
 considerable, compared with that of our transactions with Rus- 
 sia, Sweden, and the ports of Prussia, and the Germanic Asso- 
 ciation on the Baltic ; but the sum annually paid to that gov- 
 ernment in Sound dues, and the consequent port charges, by 
 our vessels alone, is estimated at something over one hundred 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 The greater proportion of this amount is paid by the articles 
 of cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice ; the first and last of these 
 paying a duty of about three per cent, ad valorem, reckoning 
 their value at the places whence they come. 
 
 By a list published at Elsinore in 1840, it appears that be- 
 tween April and November of that year seventy-two Amer- 
 ican vessels, comparatively a small number, lowered their top- 
 sails before the Castle of Cronberg. These were all bound up 
 the Sound to ports on the Baltic, with cargoes composed, in 
 part, of the above-named products, upon which alone, accord- 
 ing to the tariff, was paid a sum exceeding forty thousand 
 dollars for these dues. 
 
 Having disposed of these cargoes, they returned laden with 
 the usual productions of the countries on the Baltic, on which, 
 in like manner, were paid duties on going out through the 
 Sound, again acknowledging the tribute by an inconvenient 
 and sometimes hazardous ceremony. 
 
 The whole amount thus paid within a period of eight months 
 on inward and outward bound cargoes, by vessels of the United 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 385 
 
 States, none of %vhich were bound for, or intended to stop at 
 any port in Denmark, except compulsorily at Elsinore, for the 
 purpose of complying with these exactions, must have exceed- 
 ed the large sum above named. 
 
 I have, therefore, thought proper to bring this subject before 
 you at this time, and to go into these general statements in re- 
 lation to it, which might be carried more into detail, and sub- 
 stantiated by documents now in the department, to the end 
 that, if you should deem it expedient, instructions may be given 
 to the representative of the United States at Denmark, to enter 
 into friendly negotiations with that government, with a view 
 of securing to the commerce of the United States a full par- 
 ticipation in any reduction of these duties, or the benefits re- 
 sulting from any new arrangements respecting them, which 
 may be granted to the commerce of other states. 
 
 The other subject which, in the opinion of the Secretary, 
 demands the early consideration of the government, is the Ger- 
 manic Association, or Customs Union, established in Germany, 
 and now in successful operation under the leading auspices of 
 the government of Prussia. This important association has 
 for its objects the union of many of the German states into one 
 body, for the purpose of establishing uniform regulations of 
 commerce ; uniform duties of importation, exportation, and 
 transit ; a system of uniform weights and measures, and a uni- 
 form coinage throughout all the members of the association ; 
 objects resembling, as will be perceived, important purposes 
 contemplated by the establishment of the general government 
 of the United States. 
 
 In all the states of the association the greatest variety and 
 diversity had previously existed. Each had its own circle of 
 custom-houses, and its peculiar system of duties, constituting 
 them in these respects foreign countries to one another. The 
 effect of these diversities upon trade and manufactures may 
 easily be supposed to have been highly prejudicial to the gen- 
 eral commerce of the country. 
 
 To Prussia, who had labored for years to bring about this 
 commercial revolution in Germany, chiefly belongs the credit 
 of its accomplishment. She has united the members of the 
 confederation in a treaty which establishes one tariff for all, 
 the duties to be collected on the frontiers of what now forms 
 one great commercial league. The net revenues arising from 
 the duties are divided among the several states in proportion 
 to their respective amounts of population, every article, salt 
 and playing-cards excepted, having once paid the duties on 
 the frontier, being permitted to circulate freely among all the 
 states of the Union without any additional impost. 
 
 The treaty was concluded in 1834, and was to continue in 
 
 Bb 
 
38G DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 force until the 1st of January, 1842 ; and if, during that term, 
 and at latest two years before its expiration, the contrary 
 should not be declared, for twelve years more ; and afterward, 
 from twelve years to twelve years ; it has recently, under these 
 provisions, been renewed for another term of twelve years. 
 The effect of this confederation has probably been to give to 
 Prussia and Germany a new weight in the political balance of 
 Europe ; but it is principally interesting to the United States 
 in its commercial tendencies, and in the hopes which it encour- 
 ages of furnishing an enlarged consumption of some of the 
 staple articles of our production, such as cotton, tobacco, and 
 rice. The German Commercial and Customs Association 
 comprises an ample territory, abounding in wealth, industry, 
 population, and resources of every description. The states in- 
 cluded in it are, 
 
 states. Population. 
 
 The kingdom of Frassia 14,271,530 
 
 The kingdom of Bavaria 4,315,469 
 
 The kingdom of Wurtemberg 1,649,839 
 
 The kingdom of Saxony 1,652,114 
 
 The Grand Duchy of Baden 1,277,403 
 
 Electorate of Hesse 704,700 
 
 Grand Duchy of Hesse (with Homburg) 807,671 
 
 Duchy of Nassau 386,221 
 
 The thuringian Union 908,478 
 
 Free city of Frankfort on the Maine 54,000 
 
 Total . . 26,027,425 
 
 It is understood that Brunswick has exhibited an inclination 
 to separate from the Northwestern Union, of which she is now 
 a member, and to join the association ; and the accession of 
 the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg is likely soon to swell still 
 higher the total population of the states thus united, which con- 
 stitutes already the most industrious, enlightened, and prosper- 
 ous people of Germany. 
 
 Three of the German states have not yet acceded to the as- 
 sociation, but have formed a separate Commercial and Cus- 
 toms Union, viz. : 
 
 States. Population. 
 
 The kingdom of Hanover 1,772,107 
 
 The Grand Duchy of Oldenburg 266,536 
 
 The Duchy of Brunswick 251.000 
 
 Total . . 2,289,643 
 
 And a few of the states of Germany have neither acceded 
 to the association, nor formed any special union among them- 
 selves ; these are, 
 
 states. Population. 
 The Duchies of Holsteiu and Lunenburg (belonging to the King of 
 
 Denmark) 471,276 
 
 Tlie Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Schwerin 482,925 
 
 The Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Strehtz 89.528 
 
 The Hanseatic cities of Lu beck, Hamburg, and Bremen . . . 245.500 
 
 Total . . 1,289,229 
 
DITLUMATfC A\D orriCIAL PAPERS. 387 
 
 In the accomplishment of her great political object, Prussia 
 has been compelled to make considerable pecuniary sacrifices, 
 her revenues trom the customs being less than before the for- 
 mation of the association ; though this falling off has been grad- 
 ually lessening, owing to the increased population and pros- 
 perity of the kingdom. The attempts made to adjust and com- 
 pensate this loss have not been successful ; but it is believed 
 that the difficulty will be removed by allowing Prussia to levy, 
 for her own exclusive benefit, the transit duties on cotton and 
 other commodities without any material change in the general 
 system. 
 
 The net revenues of the association have increased from 
 about 12,000,000 thalers, collected in 1834, the year of its first 
 establishment, to upward of 20,000,000, the present amount, 
 exclusive of the expense of collection, amounting to 12^^ per 
 cent. ; a prodigious increase, and mainly owing to the rapidly- 
 increasing prosperity, and, consequently, augmented consump- 
 tion of the German states associated in the League. 
 
 With Hanover, the United States has recently concluded a 
 treaty of commerce and navigation, through the agency of 
 Mr. Wheaton, minister of the United States at Berlin, whic/i 
 has been ratified. This treaty differs from our commercial 
 treaties with Prussia, the Hanseatic towns, and Denmark, by 
 confining the indirect trade to the productions of the kingdoni 
 of Hanover, and of any other country of the confederation, on 
 the one side ; and, on the other, to the productions of the Unit- 
 ed States, and of the South American continent and West 
 India islands. It gives us the right of carrying to Hanover in 
 our vessels the productions of the United States, and of the 
 North and South American continent and islands, m exchange 
 for their right of bringing in Hanoverian vessels to the United 
 States the productions of Hanover, and the countries compos- 
 ing the confederation, and may be regarded as favorable to our 
 navigation. 
 
 Several states of the League have manifested dispositions to 
 form treaties with the United States upon a similar basis; but 
 it is not intended, on this occasion, to express any opinion upon 
 the policy of establishing the principle of entire reciprocity in 
 commercial treaties witli the minor states of Europe. 
 
 One of the advantages already acquired by the negotiations 
 of our minister at Berlin, is a considerable reduction of the du- 
 ties on rice, which, under a resolution of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives of the 11th of June, 1838, he was instructed to en- 
 deavor to procure. This important object has been gained, 
 and the consequences, as foreseen, were immediately beneficial 
 to all parties. A great increase in the importation of Carolina 
 rice, which took place as soon as the reduction of duty on the 
 
388 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERa. 
 
 article became known, was followed by a correspondent in- 
 crease of revenue drawn from its increased consumption in 
 Germany. The success of this experiment encourages the 
 belief that a like course in respect to other important staples 
 would be followed by similar results. 
 
 The tobacco duties, however, serving as they do the two- 
 fold purpose of raising revenue and of protecting the culture 
 of the tobacco of native growth in Germany, still find for- 
 midable obstacles in the way of their removal or modification. 
 The state of the negotiations on this subject up to the session 
 of 1839 and 1840, is sufficiently explained in the correspond- 
 ence transmitted to the House of Representatives with the 
 President's Message of the 14th of April, 1840. 
 
 Several of the states of the Germanic Association have no 
 natural outlet to the sea. Their commerce, therefore, is car- 
 ried on through rivers, the mouths of which open to the ocean 
 in the territories of other powers. This shows the importance 
 of the union to all the states composing it ; but as the union 
 itself is not a government, commercial stipulations and conven- 
 tions must be made with the states of the Union in their polit- 
 ical capacities. By a paper annexed, marked A, it will ap- 
 pear that, in March last, Great Britain entered into a conven- 
 tion of commerce and navigation with Prussia, Bavaria, Sax- 
 ony, Wi'irtemberg, Baden, the Electorate of Hesse, the Grand 
 Duchy of Hesse, the states forming the customs and commer- 
 cial union of Thuringia, Nassau, and Frankfort ; and similar 
 arrangements with these states might probably be accom- 
 plished by the government of the United States. 
 
 Such be\ng the general nature of the association, and such 
 our commercial intercourse with it, it becomes matter of inter- 
 est to consider how far our relations with its several members 
 might be beneficially extended ; and if it be thought advisable 
 to enter into commercial treaties with them or any of them, it 
 will remain to be dei^rmined whether powers for such a pur- 
 pose should be conferred upon the minister of the United States 
 at Berlin, or some other diplomatic agency adopted ; the gen- 
 eral object being to seek the means of enlarging the consump- 
 tion of the staples of the United States in Germany, and of se- 
 curing all practicable benefit to their navigation. 
 
 There is another part of the subject of our connection with 
 Germany, which, though of less consequence than those that 
 have been pointed out, is, nevertlieless, one which deeply con- 
 cerns the numerous German emigrants who are constantly sell- 
 ing their property to proceed to the United States, as well as 
 our naturalized citizens, natives of Germany, inheriting prop- 
 erty in that country. Throughout Germany the droit d'aubaine 
 and the droit de detraction exist in the shape of a tax, payable 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 389 
 
 on the withdrawal from the country of personal property which 
 has been inherited by will or succession, or which forms the 
 proceeds of real property inherited in the same manner. In 
 the United Stales, as all know, no such tax exists. 
 
 It is probable that an exemption from this tax might be ob- 
 tained on the ground of reciprocity. Some of the states have 
 intimated their willingness to enter into arrangements for that 
 purpose. If there should be thought to be no other reason for 
 a formal convention, this particular object might be effected 
 by a simple official declaration, signed by the Secretary of 
 State, under the seal of the department, certifying that the sub- 
 jects and citizens of Germany enjoy this immunity in the United 
 States ; upon which there is reason to believe that an altera- 
 tion in their own laws would be made by the states, or some 
 of them, so as to make the right reciprocal. The form of a 
 declaration, such as is stated above, has been adopted by the 
 English government, as may be seen by a paper hereunto an- 
 nexed, marked B. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 To the President of the United States. 
 
 [A.] 
 
 COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. 
 
 Convention of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain 
 on the one part, and Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wiirtemherg, 
 Baden the Electorate of Hesse, the Grand Duchy of Hesse, 
 the States forming the Customs and Commercial tfnion of 
 Thuringia, Nassau, and Franhfort, on the other part. 
 
 Art. 1. In consideration of the circumstance that British 
 vessels are admitted, together with their cargoes, to enter into 
 the ports of Prussia, and of the other states of the afore-named 
 union of customs, when coming from the ports of all countries, 
 and in consideration of the concessions stipulated in this pres- 
 ent convention for British trade with all the states of this union 
 of customs ; in consideration, also, of the facility which the 
 application of steam power to inland navigation affords for the 
 conveyance of produce and merchandise of all kinds up and 
 down rivers ; and in consideration of the new opening which 
 may by these means be given to the trade and navigation be- 
 tween the United Kingdom and the British possessions abroad, 
 on the one hand, and the states now composing the union of 
 customs on the other ; some of which states use, as the natural 
 
390 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 outlet of their commerce, ports not within their own domin- 
 ions ; it is agreed that, from and after the date of the exchange 
 of the ratifications of this present convention, Prussian vessels, 
 and the vessels of the other states forming the said union of 
 customs, together with their cargoes, consisting of all such 
 goods as can be legally imported into the United Kingdom 
 and the British possessions abroad, by the said vessels, from 
 the ports of the countries to which they respectively belong, 
 shall, when coming from the mouths of the Meuse, of the Ems, 
 of the Weser, and of the Elbe, or from the mouths of any nav- 
 igable river lying between the Elbe and the Meuse, and form- 
 ing the means of communication between the sea and the ter- 
 ritory of any of the German states which are parties to this 
 treaty, be admitted into the ports of the United Kingdom, and 
 of the British possessions abroad, in as full and ample a manner 
 as if the ports from which such vessels may have come, as 
 aforesaid, were within the dominions of Prussia, or of any other 
 of the states aforesaid ; and such vessels shall be permitted to 
 import the goods above mentioned upon the same terms on 
 which the said goods might be imported if coming from the 
 national ports of such vessels ; and also that, in like manner, 
 such vessels proceeding from Great Britain and her colonial 
 possessions abroad to the ports or places thus referred to, shall 
 be treated as if returning to a Prussian Baltic port, it being 
 understood that these privileges are to extend to the vessels of 
 Prussia and of the states aforesaid, and to their cargoes, only 
 in respect to each of the said ports in which British vessels 
 and their cargoes shall, upon their arrival thereat, and depart- 
 ure therefrom, continue to be placed on the same footing as the 
 vessels of Prussia and of the other states of the Union. 
 
 Art. 2. His majesty the King of Prussia, in his own name, 
 and in the name of the states aforesaid, agrees to place, always 
 and in every way, the trade and navigation of the subjects of 
 her Britannic majesty, in respect to the importation of sugar 
 and rice, upon the same footing as that of the most favored 
 nation. 
 
 Art. 3. In the event of other German states joining the Ger- 
 manic Union of Customs, it is hereby agreed that such other 
 states shall be included in all the stipulations of the present 
 convention. 
 
 Art. 4. The present convention shall be in force until the 1st 
 of January, 1842, and further for the term of six years, provided 
 neither of the high contracting parties shall have given to the 
 other six months' previous notice that the same shall cease to 
 be in force on the said 1st of January, 1842; and if neither 
 party shall have given to the other six months' previous no- 
 tice that the present convention shall cease on the 1st day of 
 
DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 391 
 
 January, 1848, then the present convention shall further re- 
 main in force until the 1st day of January, 1854, and further, 
 until the end of twelve months after either of the high contract- 
 ing parties shall have given notice to the other of its intention 
 to terminate the same, each of the high contracting parties re- 
 serving to itself the right of giving such notice to the other ; 
 and it is hereby agreed between them, that at the expiration of 
 twelve months after such notice shall have been received by 
 either party from the other, this convention and all the pro- 
 visions thereof shall altogether cease and determine. 
 
 Art. 5. The present convention shall be ratified, and the rat- 
 ifications thereof shall be exchanged at London, at the expira- 
 tion of two months, or sooner, if possible. 
 
 In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the same, and have affixed thereunto the seals of their 
 arms. 
 
 Done at London the second day of March, in the year of 
 our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one. 
 
 [l. s.] Palmerston. 
 
 [l. s.] H. Labouchere. 
 
 [B.] 
 
 Declarations relative to the Duties payable on the Withdrawal 
 of the Property of Foreigners from Great Britain and Bava- 
 7-ia, April, 1830. 
 
 BAVARIAN DECLARATION. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi de Baviere, Comte Palatin du Rhin, Due 
 de Baviere, de Franconie et en Souabe, ayant eu connaissance 
 (jue d'apres les lois en vigueur dans le Royaume Unis de la 
 Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, il ne se per(;oit aucun droit quel- 
 conque a raison de I'exportation et du transport des heritages 
 et autres proprietes appartenant a des sujets Bavarois, le sous- 
 signe, Ministre d'Etat ayant le Departement de la Maison du 
 Roi et des Affaires Etrangeres, declare par ces presentes, au 
 nom du gouvernement de sa majeste, qu'aucune retenue ne 
 sera desormais exercee sous le titre de droits d'aubaine ou de 
 detraction sur les heritages et autres biens echus en Baviere k 
 des sujets de sa majeste Britannique, et que I'abolition de ces 
 droits en faveur de ceux-ci aura son plein et entier effet, non 
 seulement dans touts les cas a venir, tant que les lois ne seront 
 pas changees a cet egard dans le Royaume de la Grande Bre- 
 tagne ; mais encore dans touts ceux ou jusqu'au jour de la sig- 
 nature du present acte, les droits ainsi abolis n'auront pas effec- 
 tiveinent et definitivement ete per9us. 
 
392 DIPLOMATIC AND OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 
 En foi de quoi, cette declaration, destinee a etre echangee 
 contre une declaration semblable de la part du gouvernement 
 de sa majeste Britannique, assurant une parfaite reciprocite 
 aux sujets Bavarois, a ete delivree par le Ministre d'Etat sous- 
 signe, et niunie du sceau de ses armes. 
 
 Fait a Munic, ce lOme jour du mois d'Avril, en I'an de grace 
 1836. 
 
 [l. s,] Le Baron De Gise. 
 
 BRITISH DECLARATION. 
 
 The undersigned, his Britannic majesty's principal Secretary 
 of State for Foreign Affairs, certifies by these presents, that the 
 subjects of his majesty the King of Bavaria are at liberty to 
 withdraw their property from the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, without being called upon to pay any duty, 
 as aliens, on the withdrawal of it, and without paying any other 
 duty than such as the subjects of his Britannic majesty are 
 equally liable to pay. 
 
 In witness whereof, the undersigned has signed the present 
 declaration, and has affixed thereto the seal of his arms. 
 
 Done at London the 30th day of April, in the year of our 
 Lord 1836. 
 
 [l. s.] Palmerston. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 i477-2