27TH CONG......3D SESS.

I proceed to the omitted subjects; and here the objections to the treaty are fully as great for what it omits as for what it contains. The special mission came gloriously heralded as a mission of peaceto settle everything; and to give a new point of departure to the inhabitants of two great countries in the walks of social, commercial, and political intercourse. It has only settled part; leaving four subjects out of seven to be pursued at London, with vastly diminished prospects of success; and producing all the effect of a separate treaty with a part of the confederacy, and that at the moment when British legislation had given a separate trade, and virtually a free trade, to this same part, in the great staples of grain and provisions. The mission of peace has given a separate peace to the Northern States: the new corn law has given them a separate trade; and the American citizen is very differently constituted from what I am, who can believe these coincidences to be the effect of accident, or a cause for joy in the American Union.

The omitted or pretermitted subjects are four: the Columbia river-impressment-the outrage on the Caroline-and the liberation of American slaves, carried by violence or misfortune into the British West India islands, or enticed into Canada. Of these, 1 begin with the Columbia, because equal in importance to any, and, from po sition, more particularly demanding my attention. The country on this great river is ours: diplomacy has endangered its title: the British have the possession, and have repulsed us from the whole extent of its northern shore, and from all the fur region on both sides of the river, and up into all the valleys and gorges of the Rocky mountains. Our citizens are beginning to go there; and the seeds of national contestation between the British and Americans are deeply and thickly sown in that quarter. From the moment that we discovered it, Great Britain has claimed this country; and for thirty years past this claim has been a point of contested and deferred diplomacy, in which every step taken has been a step for the benefit of her claim, and for the injury of ours. The germe of a war lies there; 'and this mission of peace should have eradica ed that germe. On the contrary, it does not notice it! Neither the treaty nor the correspondence names or notices it! and if it were not for a meagre and stinted paragraph in the President's message, communicating and recommending the treaty, we should not know that the name of the Oregon had occurred to the negotiators. That paragraph is in these words:

"After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory 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 du ties under his special mission."

This is all that appears in relation to a disputed country, equal in extent to the Atlantic portion of the old thirteen United States; superior to them in climate, soil, and configuration; adjacent to the valley of the Mississippi; fronting Asia; holding the key to the North Pacific ocean; the only country fit for colonization on the extended coast of Northwest America; a country which belongs to the United States by a title as clear as their title to the District of Columbia; which a resolve of Congress, during Mr. Monroe's administration, declared to be occluded against European colonization; which Great Britain is now colonizing; and the title to which has been a subject of diplomatic discussion for thirty years. This is all that is heard of such a country, and such a dispute, in this mission of peace, which was to settle everything. To supply this omission, and to erect some barrier against the dangers of improvident, indifferent, ignorant, or treacherous diplomacy in future negotiations in relation to this great country, it is my purpose at present to state our title to it; and, in doing so, to expose the fallacy of the British pretensions; and thus to leave in the bosom of the Senate, and on the page of our legislative history, the faithful evidences of our right, and which shall attest our title to all succeeding generations.

Our title to this great adjunct domain rests upon eight points, almost any one of which is sufficient to vindicate it. They are:

1. The discovery of the Columbia river, at its mouth, in 1790, by Captain Gray of Boston; and the imposition of the American name of his ship upon it: a discovery which enured to the benefit of his

The British Treaty-Mr. Benton.

country, and a name which attested its possession and sovereignty.

2. The discovery of the same river, at its head, and thence to its mouth in the ocean, by Lewis and Clarke, under the authority of the United States, in the years 1804-5.

3. The settlement at the mouth of the river in 1811, under the auspices of Mr. Astor, of New York, a citizen of the United States, and whose settlement enured to the benefit of his country.

4. The treaty of 1803 with the French republic; by which the United States acquired Louisiana, an with it an open question of boundaries to the northwest.

5. The treaty of 1819 with the King of Spain; by which the United States acquired all the rights of Spain to the country north of 42 degrees beyond the Rocky mountains.

6. The Nootka Sound contest, in 1790, between Great Britain and Spain, and the treaty growing out of it; by which Spain vindicated her title against the British as far north as the latitude of that sound, in 50 degrees.

7. The treaty of Utrecht in 1714, between France and England; by which the boundaries between the French and British were settled in North America; and this settlement becoming ours, as successors to the French in that part of her dominions.

8. The treaty of Ghent in 1814; by which Great Britain restored Astoria to the United States as an American possession.

By these several titles, the United States have collected into their own hands all the rights derived from first discovery, and from first settlement, reinforced by all the claims of France and Spain. It is not my purpose to discuss, but merely to state these titles. The facts on which they rest are generally known to the country, except so far as they are derivable from the Nootka Sound and Utrecht treaties; and on these two points I feel called upon to make the statements, and to give the elucidations, which manifest their application to our question of title.

The treaty of Utrecht, between France and England, as all the world knows, was the treaty which put an end to the wars of Queen Anne and Louis the 14th, and settled their differences in America as well as in Europe. Both England and France were at that time large territorial possessors in North America--the English holding Hudson's Bay and New Britain, beyond Canada, and her Atlantic colonies on this side of it; and France holding Canada and Louisiana. These were vast possessions, with unfixed boundaries. The tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht provided for fixing these boundaries. Under this article, British and French commissioners were appointed to define the possessions of the two nations; and by these commissaries two great points were fixed, (not to speak of others,) which have become landmarks in the definition of boundaries in North America, namely: the Lake of the Woods, and the 49th parallel of north latitude west of that lake. These two points were established above a century and a quarter ago, as dividing the French and British dominions in that quarter. As successful rebels, we acquired one of these points at the end of the Revolution. The treaty of independence of 1783 gave us the Lake of the Woods as a landmark in the (then) northwest corner of the Union. As successors to the French in the ownership of Louisiana, we acquired the other; the treaty of 1803 having given us that province as France and Spain had held it; and that was, on the north, by the parallel of 49 degrees. Beginning in the Lake of the Woods, our northern Louisiana boundary fol lowed the 49th parallel to the west. How far? is now the important question; and I repeat the words of the report of the commissaries, accepted by their respective nations, when I answer"INDEFINITELY!" I quote the words of the report when I answer, (omitting all the previous parts of the line,) "to the latitude of 49 degrees north of the equator, and along that parallel indefinitely to the west." (A Senator asked where all this was found.] Mr. BENTON. I find it in the state papers of France and England above an hundred years ago, and in these of the United States since the acquisition of Louisiana. I quote now from Mr. Madison's instructions, when Secretary of State under Mr. Jefferson in 1801, to Mr. Monroe, then our minister in London; and given to him to fortify him in his defence of our new acquisition. The cardinal word in this re

Senate.

port of the commissaries is the word "indefinitely;" and that word it was the object of the British to expunge, from the moment that we discovered the Columbia, and acquired Louisiana--events which were of the same era in our history, and almost cotemporaneous. In the negotiations with Mr. Monroe, (which ended in a treaty, rejected by Mr. Jefferson without communication to the Senate,) the effort was to limit the line, and to terminate it at the Rocky mountains; well knowing that if this line was suffered to continue indefinitely to the west, it would deprive them of all they wanted; for it would strike the ocean three degrees north of the mouth of the Columbia. Without giving us what we were entitled to by the right of discoveries, and as successors to Spain, it would still take from Great Britain all that she wanted--which was the mouth of the river, its harbor, the position which commanded it, and its right bank, in the rich and timbered region of tide-water. The line on the 49th parallel would cut her off from all these advantages; and, therefore, to mutilate that line, and stop it at the Rocky mountains, immediately became her inexorable policy. At Ghent, in 1814, the effort was renewed. The commissioners of the United States and those of Great Britain could not agree; and nothing was done. At London, in 1818, the effort was successful; and in the convention then signed in that city, the line of the treaty of Utrecht was stopped at the Rocky mountains. The country on the Columbia was laid open for ten years to the joint occupation of the citizens and subjects of both powers; and, afterwards, by a renewed convention at London, this joint occupation was renewed indefinitely, and until one of the parties should give notice for its termination. It is under this privilege of joint occupation that Great Britain has taken exclusive possession of the right bank of the river, from its head to its mouth, and also exclusive possession of the fur-trade on both sides of the river, into the heart of the Rocky mountains. Mr. friend and colleague [Mr. LINN] has submitted a motion to require the President to give the stipulated notice for the termination of this convention-a convention so unequal in its operation, from the inequality of title between the two parties, and from the organized power of the British in that quarter, under the powerful direction of the Hudson's Bay Fur ComThus our title as far as latitude 49, so valid under the single guaranty of the treaty of Utrecht, without looking to other sources, has been jeoparded by this improvident convention; and The the longer it stands, the worse it is for us. article is in these words:

pany.

"It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of this convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of said coun try; nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or State to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves." [ARTICLE III.]

The faults of this article are three, namely: 1. In assuming that there were divers harbors,' bays, creeks, and navigable rivers west of the Rocky mountains, some belonging to the United States, and some to Great Britain; and that mutuality of benefits was conferred by giving to each party access to these waters of the other. Even if such different ownerships of different waters had existed in that quarter, it would have been the ready way to generate disputes, instead of preventing them, to throw open the gates of each to the entrance of the other. But there was no such separate and respective ownership. There was but one owner of bays, harbors, creeks, and navigable rivers in that quarter: and that owner was the United States; and its ownership only applied to one harbor, one bay, one creek, and one navigable river in that quarter; and all these four descriptions of waters resolved themselves into one single stream and its estuary--the Columbia river. This was perfectly well known at the time--the navigator, Vancouver, and the fur-trader, Sir Alexander McKenzie, having both finished their explorations, and reported the Columbia river to be the only navigable stream in all that coast; and the harbor at its mouth as being the only one that communicated with the interior of the continent. The British, then, by the terms of the convention, got possession of our harbor and our river, while they had neith

7TH CONG....... 3D SESS.

harbor nor river for us to possess; and thus a treaty equal and fair in its terms, became unequal and unJair in its operation.

2. The second fault of the treaty was in admitting an organized and powerful portion of the British people to come into possession of our territories jointly with individual and disconnected possessors on our part. The Hudson's Bay Company held dominion there on the north of our territories. They were powerful in themselves, perfectly organized, protected by their Government, united with it in policy, and controlling all the Indians from Canada and the Rocky mountains out to the Pacific ocean, and north to Baffin's Bay. This company was admitted, by the convention of 1818, to a joint possession with us of all our territories on the Columbia river. The effect was soon seen. Their joint possession immediately became exclusive on the north bank of the river. Our furtraders were all driven from beyond the Rocky mountains; then driven out of the mountains; more than a thousand of them killed: forts were built; a chain of posts established to communicate with Canada and Hudson's Bay; settlers introduced; a colony planted; firm possession acquired; and, at the end of the ten years when the joint possession was to cease, the intrusive possessors, protected by their Government, refused to go--began to set up title-and obtained a renewal of the convention, without limit of time, and until they shall receive notice to quit. This renewed convention was made in 1828; and, instead of joint possession with us for ten years, while we should have joint possession with them of their rivers, bays creeks, and harbors, for the same time -instead of this, they have had exclusive possession of our territory, our river, our harbor, and our creeks and inlets, for above a quarter of a century. They are establishing themselves as in a permanent possession-making the fort Vancouver, at the confluence of the Multnomah and Columbia, in tide water, the seat of their power and operations. The notice required never will be given while the present Administration is in power; nor obeyed when given, unless men are in power who will protect the rights and the honor of their country. The fate of Maine has doubled the dangers of the Columbia, and nearly placed us in a position to choose between WAR and INFAMY, in relation to that river.

3. The third great fault of the convention was, in admitting a claim on the part of Great Britain to any portion of these territories. Before that convention, she stated no claim; but asked a favor-the favor of joint possession for ten years: now she sets up title. That title is backed by possession. Possession among nations, as well as among individuals, is eleven points out of twelve; and the bold policy of Great Britain well knows how to avail itself of these eleven points. The Madawaska settlement has read us a lesson on that head; and the success there must lead to still greater boldness elsewhere. The London convention of 1818 is to the Columbia, what the Ghent treaty of 1814 was to Maine; that is to say, the first false step in a game in which we furnish the whole stake, and then play for it. In Maine the game is up. The bold

"This fort is on the north side of the Columbia, nearly op. posite the mouth of the Multnomah, in the region of tide water, an I near the head of ship navigation. It is a grand position, both in a military and commercial point of view, and formed to command the whole region watered by the Columbia and its tributaries. The surrounding country, both in climate and soil, is capable of sustaining a large population; and its resources in timber give ample facilities for ship-building. This post is for tified with cannon; and, having been selected as the principal or master position, no pains have been spared to strengthen and improve it. For this purpose, the old post near the mouth of the river has been abandoned. About 120 acres of ground are in cultivation; and the product in wheat, barley, oats, corn, po. tatoes, and other vegetables, is equal to what is known in the best parts of the United States. Domestic animals are numer ous-the horned cattle having been stated to me at 300; hogs, horser, sheep, and goats, in proportion; also, the usual domestic fowls: everything, in fact, indicating a permanent establishment. Ship-building has commenced at this place. Oue ves. sel has been built and rigged, sent to sea, and employed in the trade of the Pacific ocean. I also met a gentleman, on my way to Lake Winnipec, at the portage between the Columbia and Athabasca, who was on his way from Hudson's Bay to Fort Col ville, with a master ship carpenter, and who was destined for Fort Vancouver, for the purpose of building a ship of considerable burden. Both grist and saw mille have been built at Fort Vancouver: with the latter, they saw the timber which is needed for their own use, and also for exportation to the Sandwich Islands; upon the former, their wheat is manufactured into flour. And, from all that I could learn, this important post is silently growing up into a colony; and is, perhaps, intended as a future military and naval station, which was not expected to be delivered up at the expiration of the treaty which granted them a temporary and joint possession."-Major Pilcher's report to the Secretary of War, Oct., 1830.

The British Treaty-Mr. Benton.

hand of Great Britain has clutched the stake; and nothing but the courage of our people will save the Columbia from the same catastrophe.

I proceed with more satisfaction to our title under the Nootka Sound treaty, and can state it in a few words. All the world knows the commotion which was excited in 1790 by the Nootka Sound controversy between Great Britain and Spain. It was a case in which the bullying of England and the courage of Spain were both tried to the ne plus ultra point, and in which Spanish courage gained the victory. Of course, the British writers relate the story in their own way; but the debates of the Farliament, and the terms of the treaty in which all ended, show things as they were. The British, presuming on the voyages of Captain Cook, took possession of Nootka; the Spanish Viceroy of Mexico sent a force to fetch the English away, and placed them in the fortress of Acapulco. Pitt demanded the release of his English, their restoration to Nootka, and an apology for the insult to the British Crown, in the violation of its territory and the persons of its subjects; the Spaniard refused the release, the restoration, and the apology, on the ground that Nootka was Spanish territory, and that they would fight for its possession. Then both parties prepared for war. The preparations fixed the attention of all Europe. Great Britain bullied to the point of holding the match over the touch-hole of the cannon; but the Spaniards remaining firm, she relaxed, and entered into a convention which abnegated her claim. She accepted from the Spaniards the privilege of landing and building huts on the unoccupied parts of the coast, for the purpose of fishing and trading; and while this acceptance nullified her claim, yet she took nothing under it-not even temporary use-never having built a hut, erected a tent, or commenced any sort of settlement on any part of the coast. Mr. Fox keenly reproached Mr. Pitt with the terms of this convention, being, as he showed, a limitation instead of an acquisition of rights. In the debates upon the Nootka question, he said:

"Our right before was to settle in any part of the South or Northwest coast of America not fortified against us by previous occupancy; and we were now restricted to settle in certain places only, and under certain restrictions. This was an im portant concession on our part. Our right of fishing extended to the whole ocean; and now it, too, was limited, and to be car. ried on within certain limits of the Spanish settlements. Our right of making settlements was not, as now, a right to build huts; but to plant colonies, if we thought proper."

In such terms did Mr. Fox characterize the Nootka treaty, and rightly; for it showed that, in 1790, the British had no rights on the Northwest coast of America; that they accepted from the Spaniards, as a concession, the privilege of hunting and fishing on that coast-a privilege which they did not even use. It was not until we discovered the Columbia, that she renewed a claim to any territory on the Northwest coast; and though foiled by the senile monarchy of Spain, even under the feeble administration of Charles the IV and the favorite Godoy, yet she expects to succeed against our young and peace-loving Republic.

Nootka is in latitude 50-being four degrees north of the mouth of the Columbia; and to that degree did Spain assert and maintain her title against Great Britain in 1790. But that was not the extent of her assertion of that right. Against the British, she asserted it to the whole extent of the coast; against the Russians, (the only real claimants, with ourselves, in that quarter,) to latitude 55. Thus, as deriving from Spain, our title is good against England throughout the coast; against Russia, to latitude 55. As deriving under discoveries and settlement, it is good against all the world, to the extent of the region drained by the waters of the Columbia river. We discovered the river from its mouth to its source, took possession of it as our territory, and, according to the laws of nations, have a clear and valid title to it.

Our title is clear: that of the British is null. She sets up none-that is, she states no derivation of title. There is not a paper upon the face of the earth, in which a British minister has stated a title, or even a claim. They have endeavored to obtain the country by the arts of diplomacy; but never have stated a title, and never can state one. The fur-trader Sir Alexander McKenzie prompted the acquisition, gave the reason for it, and never pretended a title. His own discoveries gave no title. They were subsequent to the discovery of Captain Gray, and far to the north of the Columbia. He never saw that river. He missed the head sources of it, fell upon the Taconiche Tesse, and struck the Pacific in à latitude 500 miles (by

Senate.

the coast) to the north of the Columbia. His subsequent discoveries were all north of that point. He was looking for a communication with the seafor a river, a harbor, and a place for a colonywithin the dominions of Great Britain; and, not finding any, he boldly recommended his Government to seize the Columbia river, to hold it, and to expel the Americans from the whole country west of the Rocky mountains. This is what he said. I quote froin his History of the Fur-Trade:

"The Russians, who first discovered that along the coasts of Asia no useful or regular navigation existed, opened an interior communication by rivers, &c., and through that long and wide extended continent, to the strait that separates Asia from America, over which they passed to the American continent. Our situation is at length in some degree similar to theirs-the nonexistence of a practicable passage by sea, and the existence of one through the continent, are clearly proved; and it requires only the countenance and support of the British Government to increase, in a very ample proportion, this national advantage, and secure the trade of that country to its subjects. By the rivers which discharge themselves into Hudson's Bay, at Port Nelson, it is proposed to carry on the trade to their source at the head of the Saskatchiwine river, which rises in the Rocky mountains, not eight degrees of longitude from the Pacific ocean. The Columbia flows from the same mountains, and discharges itself into the Pacific in north latitude 46 degrees 20 minutes. Both of them are capable of receiving ships at their mouths, and are navigable throughout

for boats.

But

whatever course may be taken from the Atlantic, the Colum bia is the line of communication from the Pacific ocean, point. ed out by nature, as it is the only navigable river in the whole extent of Vancouver's minute survey of the coast. Its banks also form the first level country in all the southern extent of continental coast from Cook's entry; and, consequently, the most northern situation suited for the residence of a civilized people. By opening this intercourse between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and forming regular establishments through the interior, and at both extremes, as well as along the coasts and islands, the entire command of the furstrade of North America might be obtained from latitude 45 to the pole, except that portion of it which the Russians have in the Pacific. To this may be added the fishing in both seas, and the inarkets in the four quar. ters of the globe. Such would be the field for commercial en. terprise, and incalculable would be the produce of it, when supported by the operations of that credit and capital which Great Britain so eminently possesses. Then would this country begin to be remunerated for the expense it has sustained in discover. ing and surveying the coast of the Pacific ocean, which is at present left to American adventurers, who, without regularity or capital, or the desire of conciliating future confidence, look altogether to the interests of the moment. Such adventurers (and many of them, as I have been informed, have been very successful) would instantly disappear before a well-regulated Many

trade.

political reasons, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, must present themselves to the mind of every man acquainted with the enlarged system and capacities of British commerce, in support of the measures which I have briefly suggested as promising the most important advantages to the trade of the United Kingdom.

Let the line begin where it may on the Mississippi, it must be continued west, till it terminates in the Pacific ocean to the south of the Columbia river."

This was the recommendation of Sir A. McKenzie; and, upon this recommendation, and precisely for the reasons, commercial and political, which he gave, Great Britain has gone to work to wrench it from us. And here let us trace her pretension; (for title or claim it cannot be called;) let us trace this pretension, and mark its exact parallel to the movement upon Maine. It was in London, in 1818, that the British Government first discovered its disposition to obtain this country. The river, and the harbor at its mouth, were what they wanted: and, as the north bank would give them the com. mand of the whole, they generously offered to di vide by the river: they taking the north half, we the south. As this was the commencement of their pretension, it will be right to give them the benefit of their own words. This we can do authentically; for, in those days, protocols were kept: and the American commissioners (Messrs. Gallatin and Rush) thus report the pretensions of Great Britain through her commissioners, (Messrs. Robinson and Goulburne:

hat former voyages, and principally that of Capt. Cook, gave 10 Great Britain the rights derived from discovery; and they alluded to purchases from the natives south of the Columbia river, which they alleged to have been made prior to the American Revolution. They did not make any formal proposition for a boundary; but intimated that the river itself was the most convenient that could be adopted; and that they would not agree to any which did not give them the harbor at the mouth of the river, in common with the United States."

This was the state of the pretension in London, in 1818: in Washington, at the same time, it was quite different; but just about as strong. It so hap pened that, while the convention was in progress in London, the Government of the United States at Washington was fitting out a vessel, and despatching an agent to the mouth of the Columbia, to receive the possession of Astoria, deliverable under the Ghent treaty. Mr. Bagot was then British minister at Washington; and, on being applied to for a letter of instructions to the officer in command at Astoria-the name changed by the British to that of

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

Great Britain that does not renounce impressment ! And after having declared, by law, black impressment on the coast of Africa to be piracy; after sipulating to send a fleet there, to enforce our law against that impressment;-after this, I am ready to do the same thing against white impressment on our own coasts, and on the high seas. I am ready to enact that the impressment of my white fellowcitizens out of an American ship is an act of piracy; and then to follow out that enactment in its every consequence.

I profess Jeffersonism, and wish to act up to the profession; and here is a case to test the fidelity of professors to the instructions of that great master. In the year 1807, he rejected, without even a reference to the Senate, the British treaty, which was silent upon the subject of impressment. It was a treaty of great moment, embraced many points, and was intended to prevent the war which was then impending; but impressment having been discussed, and no article being found in the treaty against it, Mr. Jefferson rejected it; and his answer to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, returning the treaty to them, should form the inexorable answer of every American under the like circumstances. That answer was drawn up by Mr. Madison, and says:

"The President continues to regard this subject in the light in which it has been pressed on the justice and friendship of Great Britain. He cannot reconcile it with his duty to our Feafaring citizens, or with the sensibility or sovereignty of the nation, to recognise, even constructively, a principle that would expose on the high sens their liberty-their lives-every. thing, in a word, that is dearest to the human heart-'o the capricious or interested sentences which may be pronounced against their allegiance by officers of a foreign government, whom neither the laws of nations, nor the laws of their own government, will allow to decide on the ownership or charac1er of the minutest article of property found in a like situation. On these grounds the President is constrained

to decline any arrangement, formal or informal, which does not comprise a provision against impressments from American vessels on the high seas, and which would, notwithstanding, b a bar to such legislative measures as Congress have thought or may think proper to adopt, for controlling that species of ag. gression. Without a provision against impress ments, substantially such as is contemplated in your original instructions, NO TREATY IS TO BE CONCLUDED."

This was the language of Mr. Jefferson in 1807. Still more should it be the language of his country in 1842, when our strength is more than doubled; when we have once refused to make a treaty, in time of peace, without renunciation of impressment; when we have had one war against it; and when thirty years' cessation of the practice had sunk the pretension. Above all, it should have been the language in 1812, when the special mission came heralded with the beatitude of peace, authorized to settle everything, and seeking sacrifices from us, which should, at the least, have commanded justice from her. Instead of this, what was the language? And here justice to the parties requires that each should be allowed to speak for himself. Listen to them.

President Tyler says:

'The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this country, by British cruisers, although not practised 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 renew. ed contentions at the first breaking out of a European war, that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the Secre tary of State to the British minister explains the ground which the Government has assumed, and the principles which it means to uphold. For the defence of these grounds. and the Inaintenance of these principles, the most perfect reliance is placed on the intelligence of the American people, and on their firmness and patrio ism, in whatever touches the honor of the country, or its great and essential interests."

Mr. Webster says:

"In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war-a condition s favorable for dispassionate consideration-England herself has evidently seen the harshness of impressment, even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service; and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its necessity, by other means of manning the royal navy more compatible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age.

"Under these circumstances, the Gover: ment 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 deliterations.

"The American Government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of impressing seamen from American vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recognise; and is inva riably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be submitted to."

"This announcement is not made, my Lord, to revive useless recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which Fave been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of

The British Treaty-Mr. Benton.

peace. Far otherwise. Is purpose is to extinguish those fres effectually, belore 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 conviction that high interests of both nations require that this so-long-contested and controverted subject should now 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 communicate your sentiments in this respect to your Government.

"This letter closes, my Lord, on my part, our official cor respondence; and I gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my high and sincere regard.

Lord Ashburton answers:

"I am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain 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 believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized States of Europe."

The very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. Our people 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 execute 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 formi. dable, that it is admitted that some remedy should, if possible, 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 consideration of an important subject. I have much reason to hope that a satis factory 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 Govern. inent favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the United States.

"I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you connected with my rission, to express the satisfaction I feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem and regard."

This is the correspondence: and what a correspondence it is! What an exchange of phrases! One denies the right of impressment: the other af firms it. Both wish for an amicable agreement; but neither attempts to agree. Both declare the season of peace to be the proper time to settle this question; and both agree that the present season of peace is not the convenient one." Our Secretary rises so high as to declare that the administration "is now prepared" to put its veto on the practice: the British negotiator shows that his Government is still prepared to resume the practice whenever her interest requires it. Our negotiator hopes that his communication will be received in the spirit of peace: the British minister replies, that it will. Our Secretary then persuades himself that the British minister will communicate his sentiments, in this respect, to his own Government: his Lordship promises it faithfully. And, thereupon, they shake hands and part.

How different this holyday scene from the firm and virile language of Mr. Jefferson: "No treaty to be signed without a provision against impressment;" and this language backed by the fact of the instant rejection of the treaty so signed! Lord Chatham said of Magna Charta, that it was home. ly Latin, but worth all the classics. So say I of this reply of Mr. Jefferson: it is plain English, but worth all the phrases which rhetoric could ever expend upon the subject. It is the only answer which our Secretary negotiator should have given, after committing the fault of broaching the subject. Instead of that, he commences rhetorician, new vamps old arguments, writes largely and prettily, and loses the question by making it debatable. His adversary sees his advantage, and seizes it. He abandons the field of rhetoric to the lawyer negotiator; puts in a fresh claim to impressment; saves the question from being lost by non-user; reestablishes the debate, and adjourns it to London. He keeps alive the pretension of impressment. against us, the white race, while binding us to go to Africa to fight it down for the black race; and has actually left us on lower ground, in relation to this question, than we stood upon before the late war. If this treaty is ratified, we must begin where we were in 1806, when Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney went to London to negotiate against impressment; we must begin where they did, with the disadvantage of having yielded to Great Britain all that she wanted, and having lost all our vantageground in the negotiation. We must goto London, engage in a humiliating negotiation, become the spectacle of nations, and the sport of diplomacy; and wear out years in begging to be spared from British seizure, when sitting under cur own flag,

Senate.

and sailing in our own ship: we must submit to all this degradation, shame and outrage, unless Congress redeems us from the condition into which we have fallen, and provides for the liberty of our people on the seas, by placing American impress ment where African impressment has already been placed-PIRACY BY LAW! For one, I am ready to vote the act--to execute it--and to abide its every consequence.

The case of the Creole, as it is called, is another of the omitted subjects. It is only one of a number of cases (differing in degree, but the same in character) which have occurred within a few years, and are becoming more frequent and violent. It is the case of American vessels, having American slaves on board, and pursuing a lawful voyage, and being driven by storms or carried by violence into a British port, and their slaves liberated by British law. This is the nature of the wrong. It is a general outrage, liable to.occur in any part of the British dominions, but happens most usually in the British West India islands, which line the pas sage round the Florida reefs in a voyage between New Orleans and the Atlantic ports. I do not speak of the 12,000 slaves (worth, at a moderate computation, considering they must be all grown, and in youth or middle life, at least $6,000,000) enticed into Canada, and received with the honors and advantages due to the first class of emigrants. I do not speak of these, nor of the liberation of slaves carried voluntarily by their owners into Brit ish ports: the man who exposes his property wilfully to the operation of a known law, should abide the consequences to which he has subjected it. I confine myself to cases of the class mentioned-such as the Encomium, the Comet, the Enterprise, the Creole, and the Hermosa-cases in which wreck, tempest, violence, mutiny, and murder were the means of carrying the vessel into the interdicted port, and in which the slave property, after being saved to the owners from revolt and tempests, became the victim and the prey of British law. It is of such cases that I complain, and of which I say that they furnish no subject for the operation of injurious laws, and that each of these vessels should have been received with the hospitality due to misfortune, and allowed to depart with all convenient despatch, and with all her contents of persons and property. This is the law of nations: it is what the civilization of the age requires. And it is not to be tolerated in this nineteenth century that an American citizen, passing from one port to another of his own country, with property protected by the laws of his country, should encounter the perils of an unfortunate navigator in the dark ages, shipwrecked on a rude and barbarian coast. This is not to be tolerated in this age, and by such a power as the United States, and after sending a fleet to Africa to protect the negroes. Justice, like charity, should begin at home; and protection should he given where allegiance is exacted. We cannot tolerate the spoil and pillage of our own citizens, within sight of our own-coasts, after sending 4,000 miles to redress the wrongs of the black race. But if this treaty is ratified, it seems that we shall have to endure it, or seek redress by other means than negotiation. The previous cases were at least ameliorated by compensation to their owners for the liberation of the slaves; but in the more recent and most atrocious case of the Creole, there is no indemnity of any mind-neither compensation to the owners, whose property has been taken; nor apol ogy to the Government, whose flag has been insulted; nor security for the future, by giving up the practice. A treaty is signed without a stipulation of any kind on the subject; and, as it would seem, to the satisfaction of those who made it, and of the President, who sends it to us. A correspondence has been had; the negotiators have exchanged diplomatic notes on the subject; and these notes are expected to be as satisfactory to the country as to those who now have the rule of it. The President, in his message, says:

"On the subject of the interference of the British authorities in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the cor respondence which has taken place, showing the grounds taken by this Government, and the engagements e tered into by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the just expec tation of the people of the United States "-Message, Aug 9.

This is a short paragraph for so large a subject; but it is all the message contains. But let us see what it amounts to, and what it is that is expected to satisfy the just expectations of the country. It is the grounds taken in the correspondence, and the engagements entered into by the British minister,