Page images
PDF
EPUB

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE SENATE, RELATIVE TO EXECUTION OF BRITISH TREATY. FEB. 7, 1817.

I TRANSMIT to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State, complying with their resolution of the 28th of last month. JAMES MADISON.

REPORT.

THE Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of last month, requesting the President to cause to be laid before the Senate such information as he may possess, touching the execution of so much of the first article of the late treaty of peace and amity between his Britannick majesty and the United States of America, as relates to the restitution of slaves, has the honour to submit to the President the accompanying papers, marked A, B, C, D, and E, as containing all the information in this Department supposed to be called for by the said resolution.

All which is respectfully submitted.

JAMES MONROE.

Department of State, February 5th, 1817.

( A. )

Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Adams, dated May 11, 1815.

"I AM Sorry to have to state that the British naval commanders have construed the stipulation in the treaty not to carry off with their forces the slaves whom they had taken from our citizens, differently from this government. My correspondence with Mr. Baker, of which a copy is enclosed, will show the ground of this difference, which appears to be so decidedly in favour of the United States, that it has excited surprise that it should have existed, and still greater that the British officers should have acted on their construction, by removing the slaves in question. Mr. Baker makes a distinction between the slaves who were in British ships of war in our waters, and those who were in the posts held by their forces at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, but I think without reason.

It seems to have been the intention of

the parties, and to be the clear import of the article, that they should carry off no slaves that were then within our limits. They were as much in the possession and under the authority of the British commanders, in the forts or other places held by their troops on the land as in their vessels. It was as much a carrying away in the one instance as in the other; and the injury to the proprietors of the slaves was the same. In short, I see no ground for such a distinction. The United States have a right either to the restitution of all these slaves, or to compensation for their loss. I shall forward to you, without delay, a list of those, thus removed, with an estimate of their value, the payment of which, if the slaves themselves are not restored, you will claim of the British govern

ment."

The Secretary of State to Mr. Baker, Charge d'Affaires of his Britannick Majesty. April 1, 1815.

SIR, I regret to have to state, that the commanders. of his Britannick majesty's naval forces in the Chesapeake and on Cumberland Island, and other islands off the southern coast, have construed the stipulation in the first article of the treaty of peace, lately concluded between the United States and Great Britain, very differently from what is thought to be a just construction of it by this government. They comprise slaves, and other private property, under the same regulation with artillery, and other publick property, and contend that none ought to be restored, except such as were, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, in the forts and places where they were originally taken.

By the first article of the treaty it is stipulated, "that all territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken from either party by the other, during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands herein after mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other publick property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein, upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property."

A very obvious distinction, exists between private and publick property, and there may be a strong and obvious

motive for destroying the one, when there can be none for destroying the other. It frequently happens, in surrendering territory by a treaty of peace, that the party withdrawing stipulates a right to destroy the fortifications in its possession, and to carry away or destroy the artillery and munitions of war in them, but, it is believed, that no example can be found of a stipulation to authorize the destruction of private property of any kind, especially slaves. Equally strange would a stipulation be not to destroy them.

The terms of the article preserve this distinction between publick and private property in a guarded manner. All territory, places, and possessions, with a particular exception, shall be restored without destroying or carrying away any of the artillery or other publick property, originally captured in the said forts or places, and which remain there upon the exchange of ratifications. So far the stipulation acts upon proper subjects and conforms to usage. Extend it to slaves and other private property, and how inconsistent and unnatural the application! Had it been intended to put slaves and other private property on the same ground with artillery and other publick property, the terms "originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein on the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty," would have followed at the end of the sentence, after "slaves and other private. property." In that case, both interests, the publick and the private, would have been subject to the same restraint. But by separating them from each other, and putting the restrictive words immediately after "artillery and other publick property," it shows that it was intended to confine their operation to those objects only, excluding from it "slaves and other private property.'

Other consequences, equally inconsistent with the spirit and equity of the article, would follow, from the construction given of it by the British naval commanders. If the slaves, and other private property, are placed on the same footing with artillery, and other publick property, the consequence must be that all will be carried away. It is believed that none of the slaves were taken in forts, or other places, where the British troops happened to be at the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty. By far the greater number, if not the whole, were taken from proprietors inhabiting the country bordering on the bays and

VOL. XI.

28

rivers which empty into the Atlantick. As this fact was well known to the commissioners of both nations, it fur. nishes a conclusive argument against the construction contended for by the British naval commanders. It can not be believed that the commissioners would have agreed to a stipulation which they respectively knew would produce no effect.

In supposing that all the slaves would be carried away under the construction given to this article by the British naval commanders, I have considered the term "place" in a qualified sense, synonymous with fort, as a military station taken by the British forces and held by them at the peace. But if it is construed' in a more enlarged sense, such as the country from which the slaves were taken, none could be carried away, even under that construction. That it must be construed in this enlarged sense, if applicable to slaves and other private property, is obvious, from the consideration that the act of taking them removed them from the places where they were taken.

The stipulation in this article, in relation to the point in question, by a fair and just construction, appears to me to amount to this, that each party shall restore, without delay, all the territory, places, and possessions, which had been taken by it, with the exception of certain islands that neither shall destroy or carry away artillery or publick property, provided they be, at the time of the exchange of ratifications, in the forts or places in which they were originally captured: that neither shall carry away slaves or other private property. The restraint provided against the carrying away of the latter, is evidently connected with the great object of the article, the restoration of territory, places and possessions, and not with forts and places, in the qualified sense suggested; in which sense it applies to artillery and other publick property only, the ordinary and proper appurtenances of forts and other military posts.

From every view which I have been able to take of this subject, I am of opinion that the United States are entitled to all the slaves and other private property, which were in the possession of the British forces, within the limits of the United States, on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, whether they were in forts or British ships of

war.

Presuming that your government has instructed you upon this subject, and that it concurs in this construction of the article, I flatter myself that you will give directions to the British naval commanders not to carry away any of the slaves and other private property, which may thus be fairly claimed by the United States.

I have the honour to be, &c. JAMES MONROE.

Washington, April 3, 1815.

SIR,--I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 1st instant, stating that the commanders of his majesty's naval forces have given a different construction to that part of the first article of the treaty of peace lately concluded between the two countries, which relates to the restoration of slaves and private property, from what is thought by the American government to be its just construction, by making the restriction annexed to the restoration of artillery and publick property likewise apply to slaves and private property; at the same time expressing your opinion that the United States are entitled to all the slaves and other private property in possession of the British forces, within the limits of the United States on the exchange of the ratifications, whether they were in forts or British ships of war, and requesting, under the supposition that his majesty's government concurred in this construction of the article, and had furnished me with instructions accordingly, that I would give directions to the naval commanders not to carry away any of the slaves so claimed by the United States.

As I have not received any communication on the subject from the commander in chief on the American station, by whose orders the several naval commanders have, no doubt, been guided, I am unacquainted with the grounds on which he rests his interpretation of the words of the first article of the treaty. It is, however, not improbable that he may have imagined that it could not have been intended by the plenipotentiaries of the two countries that there should be a general prohibition against carrying away from the places restored all private property of every description, and to whomsoever belonging, found therein on the exchange of the ratifications, and that, therefore, as some limitation must have been contemplated in the case of private as well as publick property, the restriction attached, by the words immediately pre

« PreviousContinue »