United States at Berlin, in which the theory of a right of search in time of peace was vigorously assailed."

Difficult and tangled as this question had become, however, the eighth article of the treaty of Washington settled it so completely and so easily, that, as in every similar case where a great discovery is made, the universal feeling of the country and the world was a general sentiment of wonder that the discovery had never been made before: "The parties mutually stipulate," says the article mentioned, "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 numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eight 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 and coöperation, upon mutual consultations, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communicated by each government to the other, respectively."

66

The two countries made an additional stipulation, in relation to other governments, with a desire still farther to act in concert in suppressing and forever rooting up this unrighteous traf fic; and it was a stipulation, which, while it promised to secure its object, entirely avoided the offensive claim, set up by Great Britain, of a right of search: Whereas," says the ninth article of the treaty, "notwithstanding all efforts which may be made on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave-trade. he facilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding the vigi ance of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and other means, are so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a mar ket can be found for slaves, so strong, as that the desired result

EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES.

349

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 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 propriety and duty of closing such markets effectually, at once and forever." Thus, in a very simple and amicable manner, England was permitted to obtain of us the quid pro quo for which she had yielded nearly everything in relation to the boundary; and this very consideration, in lieu of which so much was gained by us, was of vastly less value to the party seeking, than to the party granting it.

By this treaty of Washington, therefore, so far as now explained, the United States had obtained her main points in relation to the boundary, and Great Britain had secured the end aimed at by her in reference to the African slave-trade; but there was a third question, in which both countries were about equally interested, though, at the moment, it was of greater immediate consequence to Great Britain. This was the question of the extradition of fugitives from justice. Each country had been, since the foundation of the republic, an asylum for the criminals of the other; and as both spoke the same language, enjoyed nearly the same laws, and furnished about the same general advantages to their citizens, a voluntary change of residence from one to the other, the only price the worst of malefactors had to pay for security against all pun ishment, was too easy to admit of the administration of thorough justice in either country. The Canadas were full of American citizens, who, flying from just punishment, or escaping from the jurisdiction of our laws, had found a refuge among a kindred population, with whom they could live as happily as at home; and the United States, on the other hand, had received thousands of British subjects, who had committed crimes of the deepest dye, but who had found it more agreeable and more

easy to live and thrive among a people of their own blood on this side, than on the other side of the Atlantic. Something therefore, which should entirely relieve the two countries of this common evil, had been contemplated for half a century; but the honor of achieving what had been so long desired, was left for Mr. Webster. The tenth artic'e of his treaty for ever settled this subject. "It is agreed," says that document, "that the United States, and her Britannic majesty shall, upon mutual requisitions by them, or their ministers, officers, or authorities, respectively made, deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, 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, according 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 authority, 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 evidence 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 by the party who makes the requisition, and receives the fugitive.”

In addition to the crimes here specified, England was anx lous to ir sert that of treason, in order the more effectually to

BURNING OF THE CAROLINE.

351

defend herself against the revolutionists of Ireland, and their co-laborers within her immediate limits; but, had this been insisted on, it would have given a pretext to the southern senti ment of this country, which was ready to break out into the form and force of a demand, of reclaiming fugitives from a state of slavery, who might take shelter under the banner of Great Britain. These two topics, therefore, were excluded from the treaty, as likely, if inserted, to produce less good than evil; and it was well known, too, to Lord Ashburton, that Mr. Webster would not have consented to any arrangements by which British subjects, any more than American citizens, should be returned to punishment for political opinions, or slaves, who had thus secured their independence, should be again remanded to a state of bondage.

These three were the leading questions claiming the attention of the two illustrious diplomatists; but there were others, incidental to their great design of settling the prominent differences between their governments, which were of no less moment than those included in their treaty. The treaty did not allude to the case of McLeod, nor make any provision against the recurrence of such cases; but a law was passed by congress, evidently by agreement, and at the particular suggestion of Mr. Webster, by which all persons charged with an act similar to his were to be held under the jurisdiction, not of any single state, but of the United States.

The burning of the Caroline, within the limits of the United States, was also presented by Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton as a flagrant wrong, which, though it had been passed over by the preceding administration, could no longer be overlooked; Lord Ashburton was compelled to make an apology to our government, in the name of his own, which England is not accustomed to make to the greatest powers on earth; and Mr. Webster received the apology in a dignified and yet friendly manner, at once securing respect to our national character and

rights, without needlessly wounding the pride of that govern ment, from which the apology had come: "Understanding these principles alike," says the American secretary to the British minister," 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 purpose of self-defence. 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 sovereign authority of the United States; seeing that it is acknowledged that, whether justifiable or not, there was yet a violation of the territory of the United States, and that you are instructed to say that your government considers that as a most serious occurrence; ing, 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 acknowledgments and assurances in the conciliatory spirit which marks your lordship's letter, and will make this subject, as a complaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further discussion between the two governments."

see

The doctrine of impressment, as asserted by Great Britain, which had been the leading cause in producing the late war between that country and the United States, Mr. Webster earnestly desired to bring into the negotiations between him and the British minister; but Lord Ashburton had received no instructions on that subject. Mr. Webster, however, would not let the occasion pass, without expressing to the representative of England the American view of this practice of impressment; and he accordingly addressed a letter to Lord Ashburton, in which he discussed the whole matter with his characteristic ability. Indeed, it is doubtful whether there is a state paper of greater ability in the language. In the first place, he gives a history of the subject in that style of brevity