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

to the Hon. Stratford Canning, dated the 30th of December, 1820:

"But, while regretting that the character of the organized means of co-operation for the suppression of the African slave. trade, proposed by Great Britain, did not admit of our concurrence in the adoption of them, the President has been far from the disposition to reject or discountenance the general proposi tion of concerted co-operation with Great Britain, to the ac complishment of the common end-the suppression of the trade. For this purpose, armed cruisers of the United States have been for some time kept stationed on the coast which is the scene of this odious traffic-a measure which it is in the contemplation of this Government to continue, without intermission. As there are armed British vessels, charged with the same duty, constantly kept cruising on the same coast, I am directed by the President to propose that instructions, to be concerted between the two Governments, with a view to mu tual assistance, should be given to the commanders of the ves sels respectively assigned to that service; that they may be or. dered, whenever the occasion may render it convenient, to cruise in company together, to communicate mutually to each other all information obtained by the one, and which may be useful to the execution of the duties of the other; and to give each other every assistance which may be compatible with the performance of their own service, and adapted to the end which is the common aim of both parties."*

An apprehension has been expressed, Mr. President, that this arrangement will carry with it disappointment to our ancient ally and friend, France -who, by withholding her ratification from the quintuple treaty, has placed herself upon common ground with us, in regard to the great question of the freedom of the sea; and that it may tend to weaken the position so gallantly assumed, on the same occasion, by our able and patriotic minister at Paris. Neither consequence, I am persuaded, can possibly arise. France will see with satisfaction, on the one hand, that Great Britain has acceded to a scheme of maritime co-operation for the suppression of the slave-trade, involving no right of search; and, on the other, that the United States, while maintaining intact the independence of their flag, have agreed to devote an efficient portion of their naval power to the common cause of extirpating a traffic which has become the horror of the civilized world. She will see, in the principles on which this arrangement is founded, the very doctrines heretofore asserted by her most distinguished statesmen--by Talleyrand, in 1814; by the Duc de Richelieu, in 1818; and by Chateaubriand, in 1822: and in the arrangement itself she will see an exact reflection of the contre-projet which she caused to be presented to the Congress of Aix la Chapelle, as a substitute for the British proposition of a reciprocal right of search. In regard to our distinguished representative at the court of France, the conclusion of this arrangement will serve only to crown his useful and efficient services; and the ratification of the quintuple treaty--which, by his timely and well-directed efforts, he has contributed thus far to avert-must henceforward be considered as definitively withheld. No person honors more than I do the true-hearted instincts of American patriotism, as well as the sagacious views and lofty spirit, which have directed our able minister, at so important a juncture. He has entitled himself to, and will undoubtedly receive, the warmest thanks of his country.

This

The incidental advantages attending this arrangement, in the support and protection which the presence of an American squadron will give to our growing commerce on the coast of Africaa commerce susceptible of the most beneficial developments, through the civilized colonial settlements already established there-constitute an important additional recommendation of it. consideration early attracted the attention of the proper department; and we see, from the report of the Secretary of the Navy at the commencement of the session, that he proposed to enlarge materially the number of vessels employed on the African station, as well in reference to this object, as for the suppression of the slave-trade. The extent of the squadron stipulated to be maintained there, is probably not greater than the Secretary would have deemed expedient in any event; and the expense will be amply repaid in resulting benefits 'to the commerce of the country.

The last stipulation in the treaty which remains to be noticed, is that by which the parties agree mutually to surrender fugitives from justice, in certain cases. An arrangement of this sort between neighboring States, whose territories border on each other through an extended boundary--presenting to offenders great facilities of escape from one jurisdiction into the other--seems to be urgently demanded by the interests of peace, law, and social order. So just and proper is it in itself, that some writers of high authority on the law of nations have regarded it as a matter of absolute obliga

The British Treaty—Mr. Rives.

tion, independently of treaty stipulations.. The modern and better opinion, however, (considering how diversified, and often arbitrary, is the penal legislation of different countries,) is, that there is no obligation to surrender fugitives from the criminal justice of one country taking refuge in another, but in virtue of positive and precise compact. The want of some conventional arrangement of this sort between the United States and Great Britain has been particularly felt in the States of the Union adjacent to the Canadas and other British possessions on the continent, where the prospect of the easy impunity gained by passing from one side to the other of the boundary line has been found to operate as a great temptation and encouragement to crime. Several of those States have manifested an earnest desire for such a reciprocal arrangement between the two Governments. The stipulation in the treaty, it will be seen, is confined exclusively to crimes of an aggravated character against life or property-such as murder, robbery, piracy, and some two or three other enumerated offences, carefully pretermitting all political offences; and lest some unforeseen abuse or inconvenience should arise in the practical administration of the agreement, the right is reserved to either party to terminate it at will.

This article closes the circle of matters embraced by the treaty. There are other questions, of much interest to both countries, which have formed the subject of an important correspondence between the Secretary of State and the special minister of Great Britain. This correspondence has been laid before the Senate with the treaty, and must necessarily enter into their consideration in disposing of the treaty itself. It has, therefore, attracted the careful attention of the committee; and they have seen, with pleasure, that there has been an amicable and honorable understanding, or an important advance to such an understanding ultimately, on each of the questions which formed the topic of hat correspondence.

The first of those questions that present themselves to view, is the affair of the steamboat Caroline, captured and destroyed, some years ago, within the territorial limits of the United States, and forming part of the arrears of an unsettled diplomatic account which the present Administration inherited from the last. It is no part of my purpose (said Mr. R.) to cast censure unnecessarily anywhere, or to enter into a partisan discussion of any of the questions which now come before us for a grave and calm deliberation. But, as gentlemen have seen fit to indulge in very unsparing denunciations of the course pursued by those now in power, in regard to this affair, and have given the reins to their imaginations in the most boundless and gratuitous praises of the course of the late Administration on the same subject, it becomes indispensable to a just understanding of the question, to restate facts in the nakedness of their historical truth.

The seizure and destruction of the Caroline occurred at Schlosser, on the Niagara frontier, in December, 183; being the first year of Mr. Van Buren's administration. It led to a brief correspondence between Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Fox, at Washington; and Mr. Stevenson, our minister at London, was instructed to make a formal representation to the British Government on the subject, and to demand redress. This representation was made by Mr. Stevenson, in a note to Lord Palmerston dated the 22d of May, 1838. His note remaining without any other answer than a mere acknowledgment of its receipt for more than twelve months, Mr. Stevenson, very properly, wrote to Mr. Forsyth in July, 1839, stating that he "regretied to say no answer had yet been given to his note in the case of the Caroline," and desiring to know "if it was the wish of the Government that he should press the subject again; and, if so, with what degree of urgency." In answer to this communication, Mr. Forsyth, in September, 1839, replied, that no instructions were then required for again bringing forward the question of the Caroline; that he had had frequent conversations with Mr. Fox in regard to the subject--one of very recent date; and "from its tone, the President expects the British Government will answer your [Mr. Stevenson's] application in the case without much farther delay." But, in point of fact, the President's expectation was not fulfilled; the British Government gave no answer to Mr. Stevenson's "application in the case;" and so the matter stood--the formal representation made by Mr. Stevenson remaining wholly unnoticed by the British Government for

Senate.

eighteen months longer, and down to the close of Mr. Van Buren's administration! For three long years Mr. Van Buren patiently acquiesced in this silence, and slept over an outrage which gentlemen-his friends and eulogists on this floor-would persuade us, in the lofty flights of their chivalry and eloquence, they burned to avenge by

an instant recourse to arms.

What advantage has been naturally taken of this most extraordinary acquiesence of the last administration, to embarrass any renewed demand for redress, is strikingly shown in the following passage of a note addressed by Lord Palmerston to Mr. Stevenson on the 2d of September last, which is now before me:

"It appears, then, that, for nearly three years, the United States Government acquiesced in the silence of her Majesty's Government on this subject; for though in September, 1539, Mr. Forsyth stated, as a reason for not pressing her Majesty's Government for an answer, that the President had been led, by some conversation of Mr. Fox, to expect the British answer without any further delay, yet that reason necessarily ceased with the further lapse of time, and could not be said to have held good as long as till the beginning of 1810 Mr. Stevenson, moreover, specifically states, in his note of the 31st ultime, that, during the whole interval between the date of his note of May, 1838, and the time when the arrest of McLeod became known in England, in February, 1841, no communication ever took place between himself and the undersigned on the subject of the Car oline. Now, as neither Mr. Stevenson, nor the late President Van Buren, have ever shown themselves deficient in watchful and active attention to all matters in which the just right of the United States are concerned, the undersigned considers that he has not much erred in supposing, as stated in his former com. munication, that this long and intentional silence of the Uni ted States Government, and of its minister at this court, upon the subject of the Caroline, arose from the considerations to which the undersigned adverted in that note."

The considerations adverted to in his Lordship's former note, as expressed by himself, were, that the President was "perfectly aware" that the British Government considered the destruction of the Caroline a justifiable act of self-defence, done by order of her Majesty's colonial authorities; that both what her Majesty's Government had done, and what they had abstained from doing, "could leave no doubt on the mind of the President" that the British Government intended to decline to comply with the demand contained in Mr. Stevenson's note; and that the presumption, therefore, was, that the President, in not pressing for an answer, was actuated by the consideration that it was better to leave the refusal of the British Government to be inferred from its silence, than to have it formally communicated in answer to an explicit demand of the United States.

However this may be, (and I do not mean, said Mr. R., to enter into the merits of the diplomatic digladiation which took place on the occasion be tween Lord Palmerston and Mr. Stevenson,) nothing is clearer than that President Van Buren cannot claim the benefit of the plea which is now set up for him-to wit: that, during the period of his administration, the destruction of the Caroline presented itself to him, for aught that appeared to the contrary, as the mere "act of individuals."*

So far is this from being the case, that his own minister plenipotentiary, in the note addressed by him to Lord Palmerston in May, 1838, "in obedience to instructions," expressly presented the outrage for which he was directed to demand redress, as one "committed by British troops from the prov ince of Upper Canada," "forming a portion of the British force at Chippewa," and "planned and execu ted, with the knowledge and approbation of the Liew tenant-Governor of Upper Canada," Whatever other reasons, then, Mr. Van Buren may have had for his extraordinary and patient acquiescence in the long-continued omission of the British Government to return any answer to our demand of reparation in the case of the Caroline, be cannot take the benefit of an after-thought, in contradiction with his own deliberate official act.

He may have thought, perhaps, that, in a case where the justification of the British Government rested on a question of fact as to the degree and ur gency of that necessity of self-defence under which their authorities professed to have acted, and in re lation to which the testimony and statements relied on by the respective Governments were directly at variance, prudence and a proper regard for the peace of the two countries forbade that their rela tions should be brought to extremity on a point of dubious and debatable evidence, where, ainid the conflict of opposing statements, it was difficult to ascertain the truth. But, considering the gravity of the occurrence, and the danger of its being drawn into precedent by a powerful and haughty neighbor, he owed it to the character of the coun*Mr. Benton's speech.

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

try, adjourning every subordinate question of evidence, to insist at once upon a prompt disavowal of any intentional disrespect of the national sovereignty, accompanied with an explicit acknowledgment of those sacred principles of the public law which guard the inviolability of territory, and upon the scrupulous observance of which the peace and dignity of nations so vitally depend.

Nothing of this sort, however, was done. The question was permitted to slumber in the most profound neglect during the whole period of Mr. Van Buren's presidency; and those now in power have had to assert the national dignity and honor, under all the disadvantages arising from the long acquiescence and virtual dereliction of the last Administration. The correspondence submitted to us shows in what manner, and upon what principles, this controversy, so long the source of mutual irritation and heartburning between the two countries, has been at length honorably terminated. The British minister gives his adhesion, in the most explicit and unequivocal terms, to all the principles of public law, which we have laid down as applicable to the case. He declares, that "respect for the inviolable character of the territory of independent nations is the most essential foundation of civilization;" and that, in addition to a sense of moral responsibility, the most obvious dictates of policy and interest would lead Great Britain to an observance of this duty, "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;" that while every consideration leads the British Government to set as high a value as the Government of the United States can possibly do this paramount obligation of reciprocal respect for the independent territory of each," it is yet admitted, by all writers on public law, and by the occasional practice of all nations, (our own among the number) that a strong overpowering necessity may arise, when this great principle may and must be momentarily suspended; but "it must be so for the shortest possible period, during the continuance of an admitted overruling necessity, and strictly confined within the narrowest limits imposed by that necessity."

on

Thus far, there is a perfect and satisfactory accordance between the views of the Government of the United States and those of the British Government, as represented by Lord Ashburton, both as to the general principle, and the narrow and limited exception to it. The exception, within the limits So astringently stated by Lord Ashburton, is admitted both by Mr. Stevenson, in his note to Lord Palmerston in May, 1838, and by Mr. Webster, in his note to Mr. Fox, in April, 1841; and upon it, indeed, rests the vindication of some important transactions in our own military history, which are too deeply engraven on the recollection of the country to make it necessary for me to recall them to the Senate. Mr. Stevenson defines the necessity which is admitted to constitute an exception to the gen. eral inviolability of neutral territory, to be "imminent and extreme, and involving impending destruction." Mr. Webster, with no less force, describes it to be "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Lord Ashburton, distinctly assenting to the limits thus cautiously placed upon the admitted exception, seeks, by a recurrence to the circumstances of the case, to show that the steamboat Caroline, being the means and instrument by which "accessions of men, arms and munitions of war were hourly" brought from the American shore to the position of the hostile and invading force on Navy Island, the necessity for her capture and destruction was of that imperious and overruling character, which brought the act fairly within the limits of the exception, as defined by the Government of the United States.

Still there was in the case, whatever may have been the supposed necessity for it, (as Lord Ashbarton remarks, with that just sense of what belongs to the honor and dignity of both Governments, which characterizes all the communications of this able and judicious minister.) the grave fact of "a violation of territory," which he is "instructed by her Majesty's Government to assure the Government of the United States is considered by it as a most serious fact;" and that, "far from thinking an event of this kind should be lightly risked, they would unfeignedly deprecate its recurrence;" that

5

The British Treaty-Mr. Rives.

it is to be "regretted that an explanation and apol ogy for the occurrence was not imm diately made;" that he can "most solemnly affirm that no disrespect to the sovereign authority of the United States was intended;" and that "he repeats the assurance of regret her Majesty's Government feel that the event should have disturbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with the American people and Government." After the "explanations and assurances" thus cordially given, he concludes his letter to the Secretary of State, by expressing the 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 succeeded by those of harmony and friendship, which it is certainly the interest, and, he also believes, the inclination of all to promote.'

If gentlemen can see nothing in frank and hon. orable explanations such as these, proceeding from the representative of an "old and haughty nation, proud in arms," to satisfy the just sentiment of national pride and dignity, in regard to a transaction long past, over which our own Government had slept with quiet indifference for years, and where there is a perfect concurrence of both Governments in the great conservative principles which must guard and secure the immunity of their respective terrritories, (differing only as to a debatable question of fact in the particular case,) I can only say, that their moral temperaments are constituted very differently from my own.

as

The next subject treated in the correspondence between her Britannic Majesty's special minister and the Secretary of State, is one of peculiar delicacy, as well as importance;-the interference of the British colonial authorities with American vessels having slaves on board, the property of American citizens under the laws of their respective States, and driven by stress of weather, or other uncontrollable causes, into the British West Indies, while passing from one port to another of the Union. The first cases of this sort which occurred, were of three vessels whose names have unfortunately become familiar "household words" in our diplomatic history-the Comet, the Encomium, and the Enterprise. The two first named of these vessels were wrecked on the Bahama islands in 1831 and 1834, and the third was driven by stress of weather into a port of the island of Bermuda in 1835. In each of these cases, the slaves on board were liberated by the interference of the colonial authorities, and were finally lost to their owners. On all these occasions, strong representations were addressed by the Government of the United States to that of Great Britain, complaining of the improper and unlawful interference of the local authorities of the islands, and demanding indemnity to the owners of the liberated slaves. The British Government, in 1837, finally agreed to render compensation to the owners of the slaves in the cases of the Comet and the Encomium, but absolutely refused it in the case of the Enterprise. The ground on which this discrimination was made, was-that, at the time of the disasters to the Comet and the Encomium, the state of slavery still existed in the British colonies, and the rights of American slave-owners might, therefore, be recognised under British law; but, at the period when the En terprise was driven by stress of weather into Port Hamilton, the act of the British Parliament for the "abolition of slavery throughout the colonies" had taken effect, and thenceforward there could be, lawfully, no property in slaves in any part of the British dominions. Lord Palmerston, in announcing to Mr. Stevenson, by his note of 7th January, 1837, the final decision of the British Government on the case of the Enterprise, added, that "slavery being now abolished throughout the British empire, there can be no well founded claim on the part of any foreigner, in respect of slaves who, under any circumstances, may come into the British colonies, any more than there would be in respect to slaves who might come into the United Kingdom;" and this declaration he emphatically repeated in a subsequent note to Mr. Stevenson of the 11th December, 1837.

Upon the important question of public law involved in this decision of the British Government, a long and earnest discussion took place between the two Governments; but terminating, as it began, in a wide and irreconcilable difference of principle, the American minister at London was instructed to propose to the British Government a conventional arrangement, by which, in practice, the offcious and exciting interference of the local author

Senate.

ities of the British islands with American vessels having slaves on board, when driven into their waters by casualties of the sea, might be prevented. This arrangement was, also, very summarily declined by the British Government, as will be seen by Lord Palmerston's note to Mr. Stevenson, of the 30th of September, 1838. And thus the matter stood down to the close of Mr. Van Buren's administration. The recent cases of the "Creole" and the "Hermosa"-one of them marked by incidents of a most revolting character-have added fresh proofs of the necessity of some understanding between the two Governments on this delicate subject, in order to preserve the relations of peace and good neighborhood; and the correspondence which is laid before us has taken place with a view to effect such an understanding, on the basis of a just interpretation of the law and comity of nations.

The Government of the United States contends that, under the modern practice and comity of civilized states, the merchant-vessels of a nation-considered always as a part of its territory, while on the high seas, and subject exclusively to the laws and sovereignty of their own country on the oceanretain their national jurisdiction and immunity, to many purposes, in the ports of a foreign power, even when they enter those ports voluntarily. But when they are forced, by stress of weather, or unlawful violence, against the will of the master, into a foreign port, they are to be considered, in justice, as if they were still upon the high seas, and, during the existence of such involuntary emergency, virtually under the jurisdiction of their own country, by whose laws the condition and relations of all persons and things on board are to be governed; and any interference by the local authorities of the foreign port, in such a case, to change that condition, or to disturb those relations, is a proceeding contrary to the law and comity of nations. These principles are enforced and illustrated with great copiousness and ability by the Secretary of State, in his letter to Lord Ashburton; and proceeding to apply them to the case of slaves on board of American vessels forced by stress of weather, or other causes, into British ports, he says:

"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 English authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, may enter where the jurisdiction of another nation is acknoreledged to exist, and there destroy rights, obligations, and interests, lawfully existing under the authority of such other nation. No such construction, and no such effect, can be rightfully given to the British law."

He then adds:

"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 violence, into English ports, the Government of the United States cannot consent that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage of such misioitunes, and enter them for the purpose of interfering 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 exclusive operation of English law; and this founds the broad distinction between the cases." "In the opinion of the Government of the United States, such vessels, so driven and so detained by necessity 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 authorities, where the whole voyage is lawful, both in fact and intent, is ground for just and grave complaint."

Lord Ashburton, in his answer to Mr. Webster's note, begins by remarking that," having left England before the case of the Creole had been brought to the notice of his Government by the American minister, he had not been empowered to enter into a formal stipulation" with respect to the class of cases to which it belongs; but that he felt all the importance of the subject, and the desirableness of falling upon some means for the prevention, in future, of such occurrences. "Upon the great genwe do eral principles affecting the case," he says, not differ." And again he observes: "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 annoyance 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

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

hastily dealt with. You may, however, be assured that measures so important for the preservation of friendly intercourse between the two countries shall not be neglected."

"In the mean time," he says, "I can engage that instructions shall be given to the governors of her Majesty's colonies on the southern borders of the United States to execute their own laws with careful 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 executed; and these seem neither 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 municipal law of the colony, and the proper regulation of its harbors and waters."

These declarations and engagements, in their spirit and obvious import, go far towards giving us the practical security we have so long sought; and wanting only the formality of a treaty stipulation, present, in the plighted faith of an accredited public minister, acting with the approbation and authority of his Government, a guaranty which all great nations regard as no less sacred and obligatory. Who that looks back upon the state of this question, as it was left four years ago by the repeated, peremptory, and unceremonious repulses, which Mr. Van Buren's administration met with from Lord Palmerston on every branch of the subject, can fail to recognise the important advance which a spirit of justice and conciliation, wisely consulting the interests of peace and good neighborhood, has now made towards the ultimate removal of one great cause of irritation and complaint in the relations of the two countries ?

The last subject treated of in the correspondence which has been laid before us, is the great and vital question of impressment. Nothing, through a a large portion of our history, had exercised so embittering and disturbing an influence on the relations of England and America as the ancient, and, we may trust, now obsolete pretension of impressing British seamen (and, under that name, in very many instances, our own citizens) from on board the merchant vessels of the United States. It was fitting, therefore, in seeking to establish the peace of the two countries on durable foundations, by the adjustment of so many questions of present interest, to anticipate the consequences which would inevitably attend the revival of a pretension so revolting to the national sensibilities, in the event of another European war; and to declare, frankly and beforehand, to the British Government, that it was a practice which would henceforward never be submitted to, but would be promptly resisted at every hazard, if it should be attempted to be renewed. This declaration, at the moment of terminating a negotiation which, it was hoped, would consolidate a permanent good understanding between the two countries, was due to the spirit of frankness and manly dealing, and called for by the true interests of peace. It was to be made, as the Secretary of State remarks in his letter to Lord Ashburton, "not to revive useless recollections, or to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of peace; but to extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arose to fan them into flame."

The Secretary of State, therefore, addressed a note to Lord Ashburton, in which he reviews and analyses with great clearness the grounds on which the British doctrine of impressment rests; and, after demonstrating with conclusive and irresistible torce that it has no foundation whatever in any principle of the common and recognised law of nations, however countenanced by the municipal code of England, he proceeds to declare that the Government of the United States, after the most mature deliberation on the subject, "is prepared to say that the practice of impressing seamen from American vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place;" that "it is founded on principles which the United States do not recognise, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be submitted to;" that the rule laid down by Mr. Jefferson, when Secretary of State, in the origin of the discussions between the two Governments on this subject -to wit: that "the vessel being American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such"-will hereafter be inflexibly maintained by this Government; and that, "in every regularly documented

The British Treaty-Mr. Rives.

American merchant vessel, the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them." Here, at least, is a declaration worthy the character of a Government conscious both of its rights, and of its power to maintain them, and which will find an echo in every American bosom.

Lord Ashburton, in acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Webster's note, recognises the propriety, in a season of peace, of anticipating and guarding against "even possible causes of future disagreement," especially in relation to "so grave a subject of past irritation" as that of impressment; and although without authority to enter upon its "settlement" during the limited continuance of his mission, he entertains a confident hope that the task may be accomplished, when undertaken with a spirit of candor and conciliation. After adverting to the "opposite principles maintained by the two countries respecting allegiance to the sovereign," he admits 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;" that those practices were attended "with injuries of an extent and importance so formidable" as to call for a "remedy;" and that he has "much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety."

Now, sir, 1 must say that, considering the marked contrast between the matter as well as the tone of Lord Ashburton's note, and the manner in which every allusion to the subject of impressment has heretofore been invariably met by the British Government, I cannot but regard it as a wise and honorable abandonment of this odious pretension, under the influence of a more calm and enlightened public opinion, and the progress which sounder principles of public law have hap pily made in the world since the return of general peace.

It is true that Lord Ashburton says that the "laws of Great Britain have maintained, from all time, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance;" and that, in virtue of these laws, "all subjects of the Crown are, in case of necessity, bound to serve their country; and the sea-faring man is natually taken for the naval service." Now, to all this, as matter of English law and English prerogative, we take no exception. But we say that the execution of English law must be confined to English jurisdiction; that, if Great Britain chooses to enforce this alleged obligation of perpetual allegiance against her natural-born subjects, who are sea-faring men, she may do so, for aught we have to say, by impressing them while they are within the limits of English territory, and on board of English ships; but that, if she attempts to do so from on board the ships of other nations, she trespasses beyond her jurisdiction, and violates the law of nations. It is to be remarked that Lord Ashburton, keeping this distinction_clearly in view, while asserting the right of the Crown to the services of its natural-born subjects as a doctrine of the English law, nowhere sets up a claim to enforce that service on board the vessels of a foreign power—which is the gist of the whole controversy.

How different was the language of Lord Castlereagh, when, shortly after the commencement of the late war with Great Britain, the Government of the United States, anxious to arrest the farther ca. lamities of the conflict, authorized a proposition to be made, through Mr. Russell, to the British Gov. ernment, assenting to a suspension of hostilities on the condition of a repeal of the orders in council, and that instructions should be immediately given to discontinue the impressment of persons from American vessels, and to restore the citizens of the United States already impressed; with the understanding that, in that case, a law would be passed by Congress to prohibit the employment of British seamen in the commercial or public service of the United States. Lord Castlereagh, in his answer to the proposition of Mr. Russell, thus nakedly and imperiously asserts the British claim of impress

ment:

"I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise that, as a con dition preliminary even to a suspension of hostilities, the Gov ernment of the United States should have thought fit to demand that the British Government should desist from its ancient and accustomed practice of impressing British seamen from the merchan iships of a foreig State, simply on the assurance that a law shall hereafter be passed to prohibit the employment of British seamen in the public or commercial service of that State."

In the same spirit, when the American commissioners at Ghent, in their projet of a treaty, offered

Senate.

an article proposing only a suspension of the practice of impressment for a limited time-accompanied, too, with a stipulation on our part to exclude British seamen from our naval and commercial service, and also to surrender deserters from their shipsthe British commissioners dashed their pen through the article, simply writing the word "inadmissible" against it.

When, instead of all this, we see an experienced and able British statesman, charged with the views of his Government, frankly admitting the evils and injuries attending this practice, refraining from any attempt to justify it on grounds of international law, and expressing a confident belief that the subject may be satisfactorily adjusted,-and this in answer to a formal representation from the American Government, remonstrating against the pretension as utterly indefensible in principle, and intolerable in practice, and calling for its total renunciation,does so marked a change of tone, under such circumstances, admit of any reasonable interpretation, but that the English nation and Government, under the influence of the moral and enlightened code which now controls the intercourse of nations, are prepared to abandon a claim which can find no countenance or support in the principles of that code.*

Whether, then, we look to the character of the treaty stipulations which have been entered into, or to the results of the correspondence between the representatives of the two Governments, every sound view of the interests and honor of the country equally demands the acceptance and ratification of the treaty. It is earnestly objected to the ratifi. cation, that there has been no adjustment of our limits west of the Rocky mountains. Most certainly it was greatly to be desired that our import ant territorial rights in that region should have been definitively established. But, if it was found im practicable to come to an agreement on this subject at present, (as the President informs us it was,) ought that to have been made a reason for declining an adjustment of so many other important in terests where an agreement was practicable and on whose immediate adjustment the harmony, and probably the peace, of two great nations was at stake. The question of our Oregon territory, deeply interesting as it undoubtedly is, is not likely to suffer by waiting for a brief season; and, in the meanwhile, the adjustment of other subjects of controversy will enable us to give a more undivided attention to it, and to bring all our vigilance and resources to bear upon it. And here, sir, I must be permitted to protest against this great ques tion being treated as peculiarly a Western interest. It has the broadest possible national relations, addressing itself to the pride and the interests of every portion of the Union; and, for one, I beg leave to say I shall be found as impracticable, if I should have any voice in the matter, in yielding one "jot or tittle" of our just rights in regard to it, as any representative of Western interests on this floor. It is henceforward the sole unsettled point in our immense boundary stretching from sea to sea, which, till now, presented so many distracting

*The following extract from the London Times, an enlight ened and influential organ of public opinion in England, and especially of the party now in power, published in October last, (subsequently to the appearance of the correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton,) fully sustains Mr. Rives's in reference from Lord Ashburton's note:

"Mr. Webster is certainly right in contending that the evils of the system of impressment, as practised by this country in former years, are greatly enhanced when it is attempted to en force its operations beyond the natural limits of the territory and jurisdiction of England and its dependencies. Except as a belligerent right, nothing can be said in defence of it; and even as a belligerent right, it is altogether different from the practice of visiting neutral ships in search of the enemy's property. That right is a part of the law of nations; it is a necessary part of maritime warfare; and, in spite of occasional protests against it, it has been asser ed and exercised by all great mari time States, and by none more than by the French themselves, in the best days of their naval renown. But, although a neutral exposes himself to risk by taking the enemy's goods on board, and becomes pro tanto an enemy, the circumstance of the voluntary presence of certain English sailors on board an American merchant ship is a very questionable ground for exercising a quasi-hostile power in that vessel. For, be the municipal law of England what it may, in relation to a neutral vessel, a British officer has no claim to act under any other law than that which is recognised by the world, or conceded by special treaty.

"There is, we believe, a very strong probability that, in the event of a war, no instructions for the impressment of British seamen found in American merchant vessels will be issued to our cruisers. The right is doubtful; the inexpediency of such a practice certain; nor can it be necessary for the Brigh navy to recruit its forces by such means. It might, therefore, be possible to accede to a declaration to this effect, and to renounce a practice which it is not intended to revive.

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

points of controversy; and we shall be the better able, in future, to concentrate the national solicitude and guardianship upon it.

I am sensible, Mr. President, what deep-rooted prejudices there are in some minds, surviving (unconsciously, perhaps) our former national conflicts, which oppose any settlement, however just and honorable, of our difficulties with England. But I appeal to Senators if this is an occasion on which an. tipathies of that sort should be either indulged or invoked. Whatever cause we may have had, in former periods of our history, to complain of the haughtiness and injustice of England, in the present instance, at least, she has shown nothing but a spirit of conciliation and peace.. I profess to be not altogether unread in the history of our eventful relations with that great power; and I take upon myself to say, that never before (with the single exception of the short administration of Mr. Fox, in 1806) has her Government evinced so sincere a desire to establish and cement cordial and friendly relations with this country. Is it either for our interest or our honor to repel such dispositions?

I know the just weight and authority which the opinions of Mr. Jefferson on subjects of national policy have with many gentlemen on this floor. They will pardon me, therefore, if I call their attention to some remarks of his, which, both for their spirit and their wisdom, seem to me full of instructive application to the present occasion. Writing to Mr. Monroe in 1806, (then our minister in London,) and congratulating him on the prospect of a just settlement of our differences with England, which the known dispositions of Mr. Fox, who had just acceded to power, afforded, he says:

"No two countries upon earth have so many points of com. mon interest and friendship; and their rulers must be bunglers indeed, if, with such dispositions, they break them asunder. The only rivalry that can arise is on the ocean. If she is just to us, conciliatory, and encourages the sentiment of family feeling and conduct, it cannot fail to befriend the security of both."

Shall we prove ourselves something worse than the bunglers which Mr. Jefferson describes, by rashly setting aside a delicate and laborious adjustment of long-standing differences, which the just and conciliatory sentiments he invokes alone rendered possible; and thus embroil anew two powers who were but yesterday on the brink of a rupture, which must have involved the peace of the world with their own? Whatever the violence of party feeling may suggest, the sober judgment of mankind will pronounce the arrangement which has, through so many difficulties, been at last effected, a happy and providential event-above a mere achievement of diplomacy; and, hailing it as the pledge of honorable peace, and of all the high interests of civilization and improvement connected with it, will hold to no light responsibility any, on either side of the Atlantic, who, by rudely rejecting it, from passion or caprice, would commit us again to the excitements and the hazards of a renewed and exacerbated controversy.

FINE ON GENERAL JACKSON.

IN SENATE.

THURSDAY, December 22, 1842. The bill introduced by Mr. LINN, to indemnify General Jackson for the fine imposed on him at New Orleans while in the discharge of his official duty, came up for consideration, as in committee of the whole; and there being no motion to amend, it was reported to the Senate.

Mr. LINN remarked that he hoped the bill would be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. If there was to be any discussion on the subject, it could take place upon the third reading. It was his desire that it should be advanced now, and he hoped the Senate would consent to the course be bad pointed out.

Mr. CRITTENDEN observed that it seemed to him there was no good reason for exempting it from the ordinary course of bills passing through the Senate that of referring it to an appropriate committee. Indeed, it seemed the more necessary that this bill should now take this course, in consequence of the extraordinary manner in which the subject had been recommended to the consideration of Congress in the President's message. If it is a subject of such importance to the general welfare, as to call for that recommendation, it must surely be one which it is proper should take the

Debate on the fine on General Jackson.

ordinary course of being referred, like the other topics of the message. This is, at all events, a safe course, and one from which he would not exempt this bill. He did not well know-nor, indeed, did he consider it important-what_committee it should be referred to; but he would suggest that probably the Committee on the Judiciary was the most appropriate.

Mr. LINN contended that there was nothing unusual in the manner in which he had introduced the bill, or its present position on the calendar. It was the same bill which he had introduced last session, and which was defeated by an amendment that obliged him and his friends to vote against its passage. The subject had been fully discussed then, and he really thought exhausted. It had been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and returned without any additional light. He could, therefore, see no use in such delay now. And as to the Senator's remarks in reference to the President's message, he should say that it was not at all in consequence of the recommendation in it, that he had introduced the bill; for if it never had been mentioned, he should have introduced the bill the first op. portunity afforded, in the exact form in which it is now before the Senate, being the very same bill which was defeated last session. The whole subject is compressed into as few words as possible, and requires no elaborate report of a committee. When up last session, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, contrary to his wishes and remonstrance. He then thought (and was still of the same opinion) that, as the introducer and mover of the bill, he was in courtesy entitled to make choice of a direct vote on its adoption or rejection, in preference to its commitment or mod ification. He knew that, if referred to a hostile committee, it must receive an adverse report. The Judiciary Committee last session returned it to the Senate for its own decision-perhaps not being able to come to any conclusion as to the nature of the report, which should be made.

The bill was very simple; it required but few words to express its object; that it clearly did, without the sightest reference to any controverted poin'; and, therefore, he could not see any reasonable objection to letting it be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and if then any gentleman wished to enter into discussion, he would be ready to show why he thought the bill ought to pass. It might, by common consent, now be advanced to that stage, and the discussion might prcceed; or, if it was thought more desirable, a day next week might be fixed for debate, and the subject might be so postponed. When he introduced the bill, his only reason for then fixing a day for its consideration as a special order, was to proceed with it in conformity with the course pursued by the Senator from New York [Mr. TALLMADGE] on introducing his exchequer bill, which was made the special order for Tuesday next, without being referred to any committee. He wished this to take the same course, presuming that it required no elaborate report from any committee-and that there could exist no desire to give it unnecessary delay. He would now propose that the bill be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and that the discussion be postponed till it came up on its third reading.

Mr. HUNTINGTON objected, that if the course pointed out by his friend from Missouri were adopted, the bill would be placed beyond the stage of reference and amendment, even should it appear in discussion that either were necessary. There was, he thought, one fact not touched upon, which placed the matter in a light somewhat different from that reflected upon it last session. It was well known to the Senate that, when the subject was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary last session, and when the committee returned the bill without a report, it was because the committee had no evidence before it, either documentary, historical, or otherwise, upon which it could base a report. Now, the case may be quite different. There may be authentic evidence to lay before the committee; it may be in a condition to advise the Senate, which it did not feel authorized to do last session.

Mr. BAYARD observed, that when this matter

Senate.

was submitted to the Senate at the last session, he felt disposed to return the fine-not on the ground that there was any legal claim on the Government of the United States, but as a matter of courtesyas an additional acknowledgment of services rendered. It seemed, however, that the gentlemen who advorated the bill were not satisfied with this concession, but that, seeking the absolute exculpation of the General, he and his friends insisted that his course on the occasion in which the fine originated, was perfectly justifiable-that the action of the judge was wrong, and that it is the duty of Congress to refund the fine. And this was the very issue which demanded the amendment of the bill which he had submitted at the last session. It certainly, then, did seem very odd that, after a repose of nearly thirty years, Congress should be called upon-after the circumstances had faded from the recollection of the community and of individual members of Congress to approve of a highhanded violation of the Constitution by one of the military officers of the Government The alternative was presented of either giving countenance to an implied approval, or expressly disavowing the intention of passing any opinion; and the Senate preferred the latter course.

Through the kindness of the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. CONRAD,] he (Mr. B.) was now enabled to refer to more documentary evidence of the grounds of decision in the matter, than was at his disposal last session. He held in his hand a copy of the record of the court, in the handwriting of the clerk of the court, and made out at the time. He had read it carefully, and had come to the conclusion that justice to the court itself-the permament interests of the people of the United Statesrequired that the matter should stand as it does; and that it comports better with those interests, and the reputation of the distinguished individual in question, that the affair should rest on its present footing. This was the deliberate conclusion to which he had come. Under these circumstances, he was in favor of referring the bill to the proper committee; and this course was the more necessary, seeing that the avowed object of the bill is to procure a legislative recognition of the legality of the course pursued by General Jackson on that occasion. He himself-his friends who push this measure in its present shape-say he would disdain to accept the restitution of the fine as a gratuity. It is claimed as his right, on the ground that he was perfectly justifiable. And what is the inevitable conclusion? What but that, if he was justifiable, then was the action of the court illegal and unjustifiable. This is the conclusion, and there can be none other. He would ask, could the Senate, with a due sense of its duty, permit such a conclusion? Was it not necessary that care should be taken to avoid this conclusion? and, therefore, the bill ought.......... to be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary, that its report may place before the Senate and the country all the facts in relation to which it is called upon to act.

It is not a light matter for Congress to sanction the idea that the lives of our citizens, their property, and their personal liberty, may, with impunity, be placed at the mercy of a military commander, and a court-martial of his officers, brought together at his summons. He knew very well that there were some very extraordinary notions entertained on the subject of martial law, which would render a court-martial the mere ministers of the arbitrary will of the commanding officer. Now, he thought he was prepared to show that, by the Constitution of the United States, it is not in the power even of the Congress of the United States, much less of an officer acting under a commission derived from the Federal Government, to declare martial law, affecting every class of the community. Congress may, indeed, suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, but cannot declare martial law to be the law of the United States, or of any part of them. There is a great and glaring error committed in this matter, by confounding these things. Civil law is that law which regulates the rights and duties of citizens generally. Martial law is a code specially applicable to the army and navy, and militia when called into actual service, and is a distinct code for their

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

government. Even in time of war, the private citizen, the non-combatant, cannot be subjected to the code which governs those engaged in warfare, without a manifest violation of his civil rights. A person not enlisted in the service of the United States, either in the army or the navy, or in the militia when in actual service, cannot be subjected to the operation of martial law, because Congress could confer no such power. It is limited in its powers. The Constitution says, Congress shall have power to declare war, to raise armies, to provide a navy, to provide arms and munitions of war, and to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. On these limited and specific powers, it has been inferred that Congress may declare martial law. To avoid this very conclusion, there is an express provision in the very next section, among the restrictions on the power of Congress, declaring that the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion.

A state of war, then, authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which is the sacred instrument of liberty in the hands of the State authorities; but does not give the right of declaring martial law, as applicable to the community generally, subjecting the citizen to a code which is summary in its proceedings, and arbitrary in its judgments. No citizen, unless with his own consent, is amenable to the military code; and that occurs when he enlists in the army or navy, or is called into action as part of the militia. There is an express provision in the 5th article of the amendments to the Constitution, which guards against such a result, by declaring that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger." The only power Government has to establish a code of martial law, is in relation to those who are enlisted in its land and naval forces, including the militia. It is to be regretted that such erroneous notions, avowed in relation to martial law, should prevail in a country boasting of its civil liberty. All Congress can do, even in the cases of war and invasion, is to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and that can be done by Congress onlynot by an officer of the Government without its authority. But that suspension of the writ, although it may leave the individual subject to the inconvenience of temporary restraint, does not subject him to be tried and punished by the military code. If an individual, no matter how high in commission, or how much impelled by necessity, usurps the power, he cannot be said to act rightfully, though he may be excused. A high and imperious necesity may exist, which can alone form his excuse; and whenever such a case is presented, he (Mr. B.) would sustain the officer. Whether such was the fact in the case of General Jackson, should be distinctly settled. And the report of the committee, presenting all the facts of the case, would place the matter on the right footing, and prevent any erroneous conclusions in relation to this question of martial law.

He had dwelt on this point, because he con. ceived these views too important to be overlooked. He had been induced to go thus minutely into the matter, with a view of showing that it contains a grave and most important question, involving not only individual life, liberty, and property, but the liberties of this country, its dearest rights, and its safeguards against the exercise of the most perilous and tyrannous power-a power such as this Government, much less its commissioned officer, has, and can have, no right to assume for a moment. He trusted that he had shown the propriety of the reference, and that it would be made.

Mr. LINN remarked that he should not have said one word more at present-wishing to reserve his remarks for the regular discussion of the meas ure-had not the Senator from Delaware made use of some extraordinary observations, which demanded immediate notice. That Senator says: "It bas been argued by General Jackson's friends that be (General Jackson) acted in conformity with the letter of the Constitution." If there was any indi

Debate on the fine on General Jackson.

vidual among the friends of General Jackson who made use of any such argument during the discussion of this bill last session, or at any other time, he had not heard it; and certain he was that he had not himself used one expression to that effect. What he and his friends did say was, that General Jackson, under the circumstances in which he was placed, acted nobly, and merited the approval and gratitude of the whole country, so fully, unequivocally, and repeatedly awarded to him then, and ever since the transaction. He was not the man voluntarily to abandon his duty to his country in such a crisis, and take refuge behind the letter of the Constitution for his excuse, after both country and Constitution were destroyed by an invading enemy. He was not the man for any such line of conduct.

He had not sought to place the bill on any ground different from that on which bills beretofore had been placed for refunding officers in the public service fines incurred, or judgments awarded against them, for official acts done for the benefit of the country. Money paid by them, in compliance with the mandates of the law, had been refunded by Congress; and upon the same ground he placed this bill-that of restoring to the public servant money paid by him for the public good. He had no wish to go any further with the subject ihan this; and would not, unless compelled by the remarks of others. He had no desire to disturb the question of the constitutionality of the matter. The question was, simply, whether General Jackson shall have the same measure of justice extended to him, which has been extended to other officers of the Government-even to the lowest in grade of your revenue officers. The cases of Generals Brown and Wilkinson, Colonel Purdy, &c., will present themselves at once to the memory of Senators; they being of a high military character. This bill must pass. The American people have willed it. It is not with them a party question. All go for it-Jew and Gentile, Democrat and Whig; and it should be done promptly.

He should repeat, that the friends of this meas ure bad not argued it on the ground of the act for which the fine was incurred being constitutional. He apprehended not one of his friends had taken that position, and that therefore the Senator from Delaware was in error in supposing it was so advocated. The constitutional question was a re served question. The friends of the bill never urged it on that ground; they never said aught about the Judge being right or wrong. There might have been those who disapproved of the course pursued by the Judge, and so condemned it. But, whether they did so or not, it had nothing to do with the bill now before the Senate, which was disconnected from any question of that kind. And, as to the record referred to by the Senator from Delaware, he knew not what it contained; but he hoped the Senator would move to have it printed. Let it come to light, and not be kept floating about in holes and corners If there is anything in it of such importance as is supposed, it is right it should be made known-right that the country should see it.

It has been intimated by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CONRAD] that this bill, after so long a delay on the part of General Jackson and his friends, was a popularity-bunting scheme. It may be so; if doing justice to a venerable patriot soldier and statesman would gain him favor with his countrymen, he must confess he desired it, for he coveted the popularity which would spring from doing right; he desired no other.

It would be obvious to the most casual observer, that General Jackson could not, in the plenitude of power, ask that this money should be refunded as a mark of approbation of his conduct; nor Mr. Van Buren and his friends;-as the first was ac cused of subserviency, and the latter of wearing "collars." No; it is reserved for the Whigs-to his political opponents--to act with justice and magnanimity, and do the deed themselves: the more magnanimous, from the bitter political war that has been waged for so many years.

He frankly confessed that it had escaped bis attention. It was first excited by the debates in the Legislatures of the States of New York and Ohio;

Senate.

and of the presentation of instructions to the House of Representatives in favor of this measure from the State of Michigan; in which latter, remarks were uttered by an individual alike injurious to bimself and to Gen. Jackson, for he stated (as Mr. L. understood) that the General had not paid the amount of the fine himself-it being paid by others. Could there be a harsher reflection upon the honor and integrity of the man who had perilled all for his country? It was, then, important to the General's fame that all doubt should cease upon that point; that the historical fact of the payment of the amount of the fine out of his own funds should be placed beyond cavil or dispute, whilst he was yet in the land of the living.

Mr. BAYARD did not know that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LINN] had, in debating the subject last session, put the claim on that ground; but he (Mr. BAYARD) had a distinct recollection that some one on his [Mr. LINN's] side of the question did, and that the general gist of the argument urged by the friends of the bill, was, that General Jackson was perfectly justified in resisting the Judge's mandate. Now, he was ready to admit that it might have been a case of the strongest necessity. All he wanted was, that this point should be settled. Let a report of the committee be made, putting the matter on its true foundation. Let it be shown that it was a case of high necessitythat, under the circumstances then existing, Gen. eral Jackson was excusable; and that, therefore, the fine ought to be refunded to him. But let not à bill, which is susceptible of a different construction, be passed, in the face of a construction which all know is intended to be put upon it.

Mr. HUNTINGTON observed that he rose merely to make an explanation. He understood that, when the bill last session was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and it made its report, all the facts were not before it. Now, a different state of facts was presented. In referring the bill to the same committee, it would be accompanied by an authenticated document, affording information to enable the committee to make a satisfactory report. The document he alluded to was that in the bands of the Senator from Delaware. He was of opinion that the bill ought to take the ordinary course of reference.

Mr. BAYARD remarked, that he had been handed the paper to which he had referred by the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. CONRAD,] to whom be would restore it.

Mr. WRIGHT hoped the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CONRAD] would present it to the Senate, and ask that it be printed. It is alluded to as a paper containing important facts, and it was therefore desirable that it should be printed.

Mr. CONRAD observed, that, owing to the pecu. liar position in which he stood in regard to the billwhich had procured him the honor of a contro versy partaking somewhat of a personal character with the distinguished individual for whose benefit it is intended-be had determined to take no part in this debate, but, having already fully expressed his views, to give a silent vote. He should not now depart from this resolution, except to reply to an ob ervation which fell from the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. LINN.] That Senator remarked that the copy of the record referred to by the Senator from Delaware was floating about in holes and corners of the Senate. He did not know exactly what meaning to attach to the expression.

Mr. LINN interposed to assure the Senator from Louisiana that he did not intend by it anything of fensive or personal to him.

Mr. CONRAD hoped not; but the expression was calculated to convey the idea that there was some mystery or secrecy connected with this docu. ment; and, as the Senator from Delaware bad received it from him, he would beg leave to inform the Senate how, and for what purpose, be bad pre

cured it.

Shortly after the rejection of this bill, last sum mer, finding it resuscitated in the House, and sup posing it would probably be his duty again to vole on it, he determined to procure all the information be could in relation to the facts of the case. He accordingly wrote to the clerk of the court, before which the proceedings had taken place, requesting