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," securing to themselves the exclusive trade with the tribe or district. A late instance of this unreasonable, and probably unauthorized, 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 jurisdiction at Bassa Cove, only two or three miles from their town of Bassa and Edina.

Our knowledge of the commanders of British cruisers authorizes us to say that their conduct is not usually thus unfriendly; 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 jurisdiction, 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 belonging to vessels or residing on the coast (for should these persons be permitted to remain, even after their slave stations are destroyed, they will erect others at points probably less assailable), 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 employed, and to proclaim to the tribes in the vicinity that they must not be renewed, on pain of having their villages also destroyed.

F

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 countries, bordering on the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, the Portuguese 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 civilized 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 cooperation. We have the honor to be, with high respect, your obedient servants,

CHARLES H. BELL,

JOHN S. PAINE,

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State, Washington.

Lord Ashburton 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 effect 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 entertained 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 ratification 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.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD ASHBURTON.

MARITIME RIGHTS.

CASE OF THE "CREOLE."

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.

DEPARTMENT 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 interference 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 committed 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 circumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is understood 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.

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 interruption along this part of their shore. The Bahama Islands approach 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 violence 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 interference 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 the 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 citizens, 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 instances of the application of that great and practical rule, which declares that that which is the clear result of necessity

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 if 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 league from the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and subjected exclusively to the jurisdiction 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, struggling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, and so within the exclusive jurisdiction of her own government, 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 immunities 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 of another country voluntarily, for the purposes of lawful trade, to bring with her, and keep over her, to a very considerable extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own country, excluding to this extent, by consequence, the jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction over them; and, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion.

This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down by writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as is supposed, with the practice of modern nations.

If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel by one of the crew upon another or upon a passenger, or by a passenger on one of the 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 if such offense had been committed on board the vessel on the high seas. The law of England is supposed to be the same.

It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel belonging to it, while lying in the port of another, is not neces