27TH CONG....3D SESS.

The

unbiased examination of it in committee. measure, however, in its original form, underwent in the Senate so full and so able a discussion, that the views of Senators were disclosed at large, and the objections on all sides thoroughly understood, before the reference was finally settled. When, therefore, the subject was placed in the hands of a special committee, of which I was made chairman, they were possessed of all these objections, and in a condition to weigh, and, if possible, to obviate them all. With these objections specially in view, the bill now before the Senate had been framed and amended, and, with such deliberation and solicitude, as led the committee to trust, not without some confidence, that they had performed their task in such a manner as to steer clear of whatever defects had been detected in the original form of the measure.

The first class of objections thus taken related to the apprehended influence which the Executive might exercise over the institution, chiefly by means of his power over its officers as to appointment or removal. Upon this power we have placed an ef fectual guard, to the whole extent that the Constitution permits. We could not divest the President of the right to nominate the three superior officers of the exchequer-the commissioners of the board; but we have rendered them, after confirmation by the Senate, incapable of being removed, except with the concurrence of that body. He may, for physical inability, or neglect, or violation of duty, sus pend a commissioner; but, unless he show to the Senate sufficient cause for the act, the officer is restored. Such is the entire extent of the executive control over the board; and its inferior officers or agents are dependent on itself, since they can be appointed or removed by the Secretary of the Treasury only upon its recommendation. It is easy to see that the entire tenure of office is thus, as to the President, rendered as independent as possible under the Constitution. The executive patronage is limited to the nomination of the three commissioners, and the executive control or interference to a temporary suspension of the same officers from their functions, for specific causes.

The second class of objections related to the power of dealing in bills of exchange; of which the purchase was considered as involving an illegitimate and dangerous mixture of the credit of the Government with the solvency or faith of individuals; as likely to be used for party or personal corruption or favoritism; and as very capable of leading to fictitious dealings in exchange, for fraudulent purposes. This power, then, the committee struck out, as dangerous, not only for these reasons, but because, for its discreet and safe exercise, three things are almost indispensable-individual interest, individual skill, and individual vigilance. These cannot be expected to act in a public institution as they do in those affairs which men conduct on their own account; and the former are, therefore, disqualified from the transaction of such business.

For all legitimate business of this sort, however, the committee have sufficiently provided in another way, preserving its benefits, and excluding only its risks. They have authorized the exchequer and its agencies to sell bills of exchange on itself, and to collect them, paying their amount to the depositor only when collected by the agency at the place on which drawn.

By its sale of bills, it will accomplish for individuals the legitimate operation of remitting funds, and withhold itself only from the illegitimate and dangerous one of anticipating them. He who wishes to do this, may still resort, for a temporary discount, to a local bank, whose business is this of anticipating funds at a distance. Meantime, he may collect those funds through the exchequer or its agencies.

The facilities of business, which this system of selling and collecting bills of exchange will give, will promote the sounder interests of the country, not less than would the power to purchase exchange; while, at the same time, the Government will be kept safe from all loss or hazard.

The third class of objections related to the issue of treasury notes on the credit of the Government; that is, its adding to its indirect power over the monetary circulation of the country, through the management of its revenues, the direct power of supplying a currency.

As to any issue, by the exchequer, of any currency, as such merely-any credit currency-I have been unable to discover any motives for such

The Exchequer-Mr. Tallmadge.

a thing except two: 1st, in order to anticipate the revenues of the Government; 2d, to aid the currency of the country by an addition to its circulating medium. But of the first of these, the committee hold that it is wrong in principle. Its tendency would be to bring about excessive issues, and to induce a resort to these mere expedients, rather than to a discharge of its less popular duty of levying adequate supplies. It will be dispensing with the most salutary and certain of all checks upon the Government-its inability to raise money without the consent of the people through their Representatives. In any unusual emergency, where the means in the treasury unexpectedly fell short, resort may be had to the authority of Congress for the issue of treasury notes, bearing interest as a loan, but not sent out as a currency. So much for the first point. As to the second, the committee regard the purpose as (for the reasons already given) unwarrantable, and its attainment as of most questionable possibility. If the existing currency were far below the business wants of the community, then much of it, as now, would stand upon a more solid basis than any mere credit circulation, although emitted by the Government itself; so that the latter would necessarily be an addition to the depreciated currency, an equal part of which it would be almost certain to displace and drive out of the circulation, by reducing its value still lower; and thus no permanent addition to the circulation could be made in this way. A fresh disorder only, and a further depreciation, would be produced.

With the mere fluctuations of the medium of exchange, Government cannot safely interfere. These must be lett to regulate themselves, through the agency of individual sagacity, keeping watch over its own interests. To be safe, it must be left to its own voluntary power of expansion, as little capable of being directed, and as quick and subtle to manage itself, as the power of the eye to dilate or contract, according to the quantity of light which you pour upon it.

The committee, therefore, have discarded from the bill everything like a proposition for a credit circulation. They contemplate no addition to the currency. The business of discounts they leave to the local institutions, as proper only to them; and, as according to the ease with which these can be obtained will be the varying quantity of money which will be poured into the circulation or driven back from it, expansion and contraction will be left to the instinctive care of private interest. The committee, in a word, have not aimed to devise a system which shall furnish a complete currency; but only at one which shall infuse into that which we already possess a new element of soundness, and resorts of convenience which it cannot now command.

They propose, then, that the bills issued shall only be for specie deposited, dollar for dollar; the amount of such paper in circulation being never permitted, in any case, to exceed the specie on hand for its redemption. The bills thus issued are called specie notes, in contradistinction to treasury notes emitted on the credit of the Government only, either as a currency or for the purpose of borrcwing.

These specie notes, issued to the public creditor in disbursement out of the actual receipts of the revenue, or to individuals upon deposites in specie, will form a currency of the most perfect character, combining the convenience of paper with the solidity of coin; so that they will be every where preferred to the latter They will neither increase nor diminish the currency, but merely give it a new activity and a wider uniformity; so that the unaugmented quantity will perform a much greater office. They can produce no expansion or contraction of the currency, no inflation, no rise or fall of prices, no expulsion of coin from the circulation, such as attends other emissions of paper.

It may, however, be urged, that a circulation thus formed can afford no relief, or, at best, a very slight one. I answer, that the capacity of such a currency is not to be measured by its amount, but by the peculiar functions (now attainable in no other way) which it will perform.

Uniformity of value in the currency is now the greatest benefit that can be bestowed upon commerce. In showing, as I have already done, that the Government cannot safely issue a credit currency, I have sufficiently shown that we cannot aim at supplying, integrally, the whole amount of currency, uniformly valuable, which the country

1843. Senate.

requires; and that, except upon this plan of adding nothing to the circulation, we should only lessen, instead of increasing, this quality in the currency. The partial but important good to which we must then restrict ourselves, is the supplying, not circulation in the mass-for that, the variously depreciated paper of each quarter already affords-but a new and universally current circulation, which may pass alike from sphere to sphere, and from vortex to vortex of these local circulations, each limited to its own locality, and unite them all. k is not as to this local purpose of a circulation that we are suffering, but for something that can perform the distant offices of interchange. Such must the proposed currency become, entering but little into any local circulation, but making itself the ve hicle of distant transactions, from sphere tosphere of the local circulations; to which, of course, in amount, it need bear but a very small proportion. But, as to the amount of the Government disbursements, or something like it-say twenty or twenty five millions of dollars--may be added the equivalents to individual deposites of specie, and the sale and collection of bills of exchange, it will be seen that an amount of specie-notes will probably be kept afloat quite equal to very important purposes. Emigration, travel, and the deposite of gold and silver by foreigners seeking to purchase lands, would also add considerably to the amount.

Let it, in this view, be recollected that the aver age circulation of the United States Bank was about ten millions of dollars; and, until 1829, only about six millions; and that its specie was usually equal to its circulation. This exchequer, creating a still greater confidence, and commanding means as large, could surely perform the same general functionsadmitted to have been so beneficent--as that bank could accomplish with only the amount of circulation which I have mentioned.

I doubt not that, besides all these advantages to trade, it must act, in a variety of ways, and especially by bringing about speedy and singular setile ments, to keep the banking institutions of the country generally sound. Nor can it well fail to restore to the circulation a large amount of specie which individual distrust of banks has unquestionably withdrawn and hoarded. Though it may not (as I have said) effect all that the times have need of, but no longer permit, it must clearly accomplish much. As to any defects which it may have, they can, I think, be none of them of a sort so capital but that we shall be able to correct them as they make themselves felt.

From what has been said, the principles of the bill are sufficiently obvious. As to the effect on the currency and the exchanges, I cannot so well set it forth as by quoting the views on that subject which were embodied in my report. They are as fol

lows:

The committee, on this whole subject, have consulted some of the ablest, most practical, and experienced men; and their own views are fully confirmed by the information derived from such high sources. They cannot in any way so well illustrate this branch of it, and its beneficial effects on the sound local banks, together with other advantages, as by briefly embody, ing the following views which have thus been communicated to them:

"A bill drawn by one agency on another, in any remote part of the United States, will be as good as specie within the com mercial sphere of the emporium where the agency is located at which payment is to be made, and may generally be neguriated above par by any holder within that sphere, and at a rate in some measure proportioned to his distance from its commercial centre. If, for instance, a merchant in Cincinnati wishes to remit money to a manufacturer in Connecticut, a bill drawn by the agency in Cincinnati, where the deposite is made, on the agency in New York, would be worth one-half per cent. more than specie to the payee.

"Exchanges through the agencies will meet all the exigencies of the markets. It not unfrequently happens that New Orleans is indebted to Ohio for agricultural products; Ohio to New York for manufactured goods, domestic or imported; and New York to New Orleans for cotton. Every well-informed mer chant in those several sections will be advised of the state of the markets. A New Orleans merchant wishes to remit to Obic he deposites his specie in the agency at New Orleans, and ges the same office to accept his own bill of exchange for $100, payable to the order of his Ohio correspondent, and tresemİTA it accordingly. This will be above par in the Ohio market, be cause it is a good remittance for New York, where bills on New Orleans command a premium. It is bought by an Ohio merchant, who remits it to New York in payment for goods; and from New York it is sent to New Orleans, to pay for col ton. Upon its arrival, it is presented to the agency where t was accepted, and the specie is ready for its redemption. The holder, however, not willing to be burdened with the specie will generally prefer the specie notes of the agency. Thus this $1,000 in specie, after paying a small preiniom at the agency, will have paid more than its amount in two remote mar kets, sent a safe and convenient currency of $1,000 into the channels of commerce, and is still at rest sustaining this amount

of circulation.

"The use of bills of exchange will not be superseded by the specie-notes of the exchequer. The former have always been

preferred, and were extensively used under the two national banks when their paper, in sound credit, had every advantage which this will possess, of being made such a substitute. This proof from experience is conclusive One ground of prefer. ence, which has always been appreciated here and in Europe, 18, that bills of exchange are more safe than bank n tes, as they offer no temptation to robbery or embezzlement; and, as several may be sent of the same tenor and date by different conveyances, (in which case, no loss will be sustained if any one arrives in safety,) the risk may easily be reduced almost to an impossibility. The perfect character of these bills of exchange, from their undoubted credit, will generally give them a prefer. ence over others. They will never be protested for want of funds, at any office where they are payable. No embarrass. ment can result from the necessity of transmitting specie from office to office. The occasions are very rare (and, if this system were in operation, would be still more rare) in which specie needs to be removed; as for almost every purpose good paper is preferred. The paper of one office would generally be as good as specie in most others. If a deposite were made in New York to meet a draft on the office in New Orleans, this lauer office would prefer the New York paper to coin, in the common state of exchanges. When the system has been some time in operation, specie will have found its proper places of re pose, and movements of it would seldom be required. Should an apprehension be entertained that the retirement of specie into the agencies would embarrass the banks, it will be dissipated by a little reflection upon the operations already described. Those officers are bound to deliver, at the time of deposite, an amount in paper equal to the amount received in specie. That paper will take the place of the specie which it represents, and the same portion of it will be deposited by merchants and others who keep their accounts in banking institu tions as of the specie for which it is a substitute. As it will be a light and convenient circulation, it will mingle more with the paper of banks of sound credit in common commercial operations, and consequently be more frequently used in making payments upon discounted notes and other indebtedness to moneyed institutione, than specie now is. When possessed by a bank, it has all the value of specie. If means are wanted for a deposite in an agency, this paper will be received of a bank, for that purpose, as readily as specie. Should gold and silver be wanted for exportation, or any other extraordinary demand, the bank which possesses this paper has the certain means of converting it, at pleasure, into the article required. Every bill of exchange payable at these offices will, at its maturity, restore to circulation, either in specie or this sound paper, the amount deposited for its procurement. Indeed, it is difficult to foster a doubt that, in regard to the means of redeeming their own emissions, the banks will possess more ample resources than at present. It is true, that the channels of commerce will be partially filled with a medium of sound and imperishable credit, which will stand the shock of every possible vicissitude, except the subversion of the Government. But this will promote the strength of the banking institutions no less than the stability of the currency.

"From the establishment of a national corporation with a large specie capital, the banks were apprehensive of sustain ing injury by the great and sudden withdrawment of the precious metale from their possession. But the agencies can produce no such embarrassment; for their progress will be too gradual to cause any convulsion; and the immediate restora. tion to the market of a medium of equal amount and value with that which is withdrawn, will enable those institutions at any time to command the specie which they require. As a just price is to be paid for exchanges, it is believed that all the expenses of conducting the business of the exchequer and its agencies will be defrayed from that source, and probably a much larger sum may be realized. The losses of the currency by fire, shipwreck, and other casualties, as shown in the expe rience of banks, would not be an inconsiderable item of gain. A small premium (say a half or quarter of one per cent.) might reasonably be exacted of depositors, if hereafter deemed necessary, upon notes issued in exchange for specie. While this system will furnish the desired means for the collecting, safekeep. ing, and disbursement of the public revenue, and a l the requi. site facilities for exchanges between different sections of the country, as well as create a sound and convenient currency, it is exempt from the objectionable features of other modes of effect ing, in part or in whole, the same objects heretofore presented for consideration. It authorizes no banks or other corporations, no discounts, no lending on credit in any form whatever, no ex pansion of the currency by public drafts or otherwise, no paper money resting on the credit of the Government, and depending on accruing revenues for redemption. It confers no extent of executive patronage or influence. No officer can be either ap. pointed or removed by the President, without the concurrence of the Senate, and only for certain specified causes. It confers no discretionary powers by which partialities may be indulged in behalf of a personal or political favorite. Whoever presents his specie notes, or bills of exchange, at maturity, is en titled to his specie; and whoever presents his specie, is entitled to the paper which he selects. The rights of every applicant are defined by law, and his transactions at the agency are of the simplest character. The laws of trade, and not any superintending board or public agent, decide the amount of deposites, bills of exchange, and paper currency. The wants and means of individuals composing the community will best regulate the proportions of paper and specie, in the absence of all artificial restraint and supervision of the Government."

Shall we, then, Mr. President, adopt this measure with the modifications I have proposed; or shall we, in spite of the cries which appeal to us on all sides--the terrible and wide spread distress that reigns over the whole country--the alarming paralysis of all industry and trade-the frightful sacrifices of property that are happening everywhere, and all the appalling difficulties that have frozen up the courage and the hopes of the country to its very heart, calmly sit down, dismiss all thought of attempting a remedy, shut our eyes, stop our ears, and determine to do nothing? Do nothing, did I say? Do nothing, whilst the country is bleeding at every pore for want of action here? Do nothing, whilst our commerce is languishing, our manufacturing and mechanic interests paralyzed,

The British Treaty-Mr. Rives.

our agricultural products rotting on our hands for want of a market! Do nothing, whilst an agonizing and distracted people are looking to us for relief! Do nothing, whilst the cries of helpless women and children, with starvation before them, are borne to us on every breeze! Do nothing, because the time has gone by for the adoption of one favorrite measure, and because the time has not arrived for the adoption of another! Do nothing-yes, Mr. President, do nothing, whilst the country is sacrificed between the conflicting interests of contending parties! Sir, I need add no more. During the last ten years, since I have been honored with a seat in this body, I have endeavored, faithfully, fearlessly, and conscientiously, to discharge my duty, without regard to consequences, personal or political. I shall continue so to discharge it; and, with out intending the remotest reflection on the motives and conduct of others, I shall always feel a proud consciousness, in the introduction of this bill, and in advocating its passage, of having done my duty to myself, to my constituents, and to the country.

SPEECH OF MR. RIVES,

OF VIRGINIA.

In Senate of the United States, March 2d, 1843-On the bill for carrying into effect the treaty with Great Britain.

The bill for carrying into effect the treaty with Great Britain being under consideration, Mr. ALLEN of Ohio moved to amend the sixth section of the bill, which "empowers the President, in execution of the eighth article of the treaty, to apply so much of the naval appropriations as may be necessary therefor, to the preparation, equipment, and maintenance of the naval force therein stipulated to be employed on the coast of Africa by the United States," by adding a proviso, that the sum so applied shall not exceed $240,000. The question be ing upon Mr. ALLEN's amendment

Mr. RIVES rose and said, that if the trea'y be executed at all, it ought not to be executed by halves. He was in favor of a full, exact, and faithful compliance with the stipulations of the treaty on our part, till there had been some overt act of contravention to it on the part of Great Britain, which he had seen no sufficient reason to apprehend. It is in this way only that the national faith and honor can be preserved intact, and that the other party will be left without excuse, if there should be any disposition on its part not to act fully up to the spirit and intention of the arrangement. The sum limited by the amendment of the honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. ALLEN,] was obviously, and even glaringly, inadequate to the support of a squadron of eighty guns, with its proper complement of men and officers, on the coast of Africa; and considering it, therefore, equivalent to a negative on the full execution of the treaty, he should unhesitatingly vote against it.

Nor (said Mr. RIVES) can I concur in the sugges tion of my honorable colleague, [Mr. ARCHER,] that the whole of the sixth section of the bill might, without impropriety, be stricken out. On the contrary, I see in it, with pleasure, a seasonable recognition of the doctrine successfully maintained, after an arduous conflict, by the Republican party on two memorable occasions-Jay's treaty in 1795, and the commercial convention with Great Britain in 1815-a doctrine which I believe to embody the true reading of the Constitution, and which establishes the principle, that, in regard to all matters submitted by the terms of the Constitution to the action of Congress, (as in this instance, the power to provide and maintain a naval force,) the stipulations of a treaty must depend for their execution on the free and responsible co-operation of the legislative department. This, too, is in conformity to the British practice. On a recent and analogous occasion in that country, the slave-trade conventions of 1831 and 1833 with France, after having been duly ratified by the treaty-making power, were formally enacted into law, word for word, by the authority of Parliament, and clothed with all the specialities of a British statute. Surely, in our popular representative system, there ought not to be less a constitutional balance and control, in the hands of the legislative department, to the treaty-making power.

The principle recognised by the sixth section of this bill acquires an additional hold upon our attention, in the present instance, from the consideration that if, unfortunately, there shall hereafter arise

Senate.

any serious practical disagreement between the two Governments respecting the true intent and mean. ing of the arrangement which has been entered into, it may become the solemn duty of Congress to interpose its high remedial powers, as it did in the memorable example of 1798, in our relations with France, for the purpose of putting an end to stipulations which have not been reciprocally observed by the other contracting party, in their true spirit, and fair and obvious import.

I repeat, Mr. President, that I do not, and will not, anticipate the occurrence of any such disagreement, until much more substantial grounds for the apprehension than any which have yet appeared shall disclose themselves. When Sir Robert Peel, in the speech which was commented upon here a few days ago, says that the British Government, by the treaty of Washington, had not abandoned or renounced the doctrine of the right of visitation, as laid down in Lord Aberdeen's letters, I can readily comprehend the declaration. It was not the purpose of that arrangement to adjust a creed, or establish a code of abstract principles. No abandonment or renunciation was asked from Great Britain of any doctrine or principle she maintained in regard to the alleged right of visitation. It was sufficient that we wholly denied the existence of any such right; and that we had, in the most solemn form, through the highest organ of our international relations, proclaimed that denial to England and the world. The rights we claimed were to be held, not by the concession or acknowledgment of any other power, but by our own confidence in their justice, and by our determination to maintain

them.

But there were practical evils admitted by both Governments, which required a practical remedy. The flag of the United States had been extensively abused on the coast of Africa, by the slave-dealers of nations which had granted to Great Britain the right of search for the suppression of the slave-trade, to cover the iniquitous traffic in which they were engaged. The cruisers of Great Britain, in the execution of this right of search, conceded to them by certain powers of Europe and America, and pursuing what they alleged to believe were, in reality, Spanish, Portuguese, or Brazilian vessels, which sought to disguise themselves by fraudulently hoisting the flag of the United States, had, in many instances, visited and detained bona fide merchant vessels of the United States, and subjected them to interruptions, more or less injurious, in the prosecution of their voyages. These interruptions and detentions of the vessels of the United States became (as, of right, they ought to have become) the subject of spirited remonstrance and demand for redress upon the British Government; and were engendering a serious degree of irritation and dissatisfaction in the relations of the two countries. The Govern.. ment of Great Britain constantly alleged, in extenuation or excuse of these cases-which were, from time to time, brought to its notice-the fact (admitted by our minister) that the flag of the United States had been "grossly abused" by the vessels of other nations, to cover their criminal and unlawful pursuits. They further declared (what, indeed, it was difficult to gainsay) that, unless effectual measures of some sort were taken to prevent this abuse, the flag of the United States would become the shelter under which the malefactors of all nations would prosecute, with impunity, a traffic which the laws of the United States were the first to denounce as infamous, and to pursue with the severest penalties.

The Government of the United States felt that, whatever measures were necessary to protect the national flag from abuse, either by our own citizens or by the subjects of foreign powers, the adoption and the execution of those measures belonged to the United States themselves. It was inconsistent with the principles which they had invariably held in regard to the mutual independence and equality of all nations on the ocean, as well as with their own jealous sense of national dignity, to confide the supervision of their flag, in any case, to the cruisers of another power. To remove from themselves, therefore, all possible reproach of even a negative connivance at the abuse of their flag by the vessels of other nations, and at the same time to take away from British cruisers all pretext for interference with the American flag on the ground of such suspected abuse,-while they gave to the world the most unequivocal pledge of their sincerity, and determination to aid in all proper

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

measures for the final extinction of the African slave-trade, the United States proposed, in concurrence with the British Government, the employment by the two countries of "independent" squadrons, of "sufficient and adequate" force, to cruise on the coast of Africa, and "to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade." The distinctive and avowed principle of the arrangement, on its face, was the sepa rate and independent action of the naval force of the two countries; and was obviously intended to supersede, in practice, so far as its operation extended, any visitation of the flag of the one power by the cruisers of the other.

That the legitimate and bona fide effect of the arrangement, within the sphere and for the time of its operation, is to put an end, in fact, to those visitations and detentions of the American flag on the coast of Africa, which had been the subject of complaint and discussion between the two Governments, whatever arguments or pretensions may still be urged by the British Government on the abstract question of the alleged right in general, is placed beyond all controversy by a recurrence to the correspondence between the representatives of the two Governments in London, which preceded the negotiation, and furnishes the true key to the interpretation of this arrangement. It was, as I have already stated, the extensive and admitted abuse of the flag of the United States by the vessels of other nations, which sought, by fraudulently assuming it, to protect the guilty traffic in which they were engaged from detection and arrest, that the British Government constantly put forward to excuse or justify the visitation of American vessels by their cruisers. Lord Aberdeen, in his letter of 13th October, 1841, to Mr. Stevenson, says:

"The confession of Mr. Stevenson, that the trade is extensively carried on under the fraudulent use of the American flag, does, in truth, justify the whole claim put forward by the British Government. It constitutes that reasonable ground of suspicion which the law of nations requires in such a case. The admitted fact of this abuse creates the right of inquiry."

Now, when effectual measures have been taken by the United States to prevent this abuse of their flag, by the employment of an adequate squadron of their naval force on the coast of Africa for the purpose--measures which have received the solemn and deliberate concurrence of the British Government, with an express recognition of their "sufficiency" by the terms of the treaty, and after "consultation with the British negotiator" (as the Presi dent informs us in his late message to the House of Representatives) "as to the quantum of force necessary to be employed in order to obtain the ob*ject in view"--such measures, the "adequacy and sufficiency" of which are admitted by the British Government itself, are taken by the United States to prevent the abuse of their flag, the logical and necessary consequence, even upon their own principles, is, that the visitation or detention of American vessels, which they have attempted to justify or excuse only by the fact of that abuse, must cease with it. It is, says Lord Aberdeen, "the admitted fact of this abuse which creates the right of inquiry." But when effectual provision is made to prevent and guard against this abuse, by an arrangement to which Great Britain is herself a party, the right of inquiry, or visitation, which was built upon the hypothesis of that abuse, must, to that extent at least, cease to exist. It requires no express agreement, under these circumstances, to create the obligation of abstaining from the visitations and detentions of the American flag, which had been "complained of. In such a case, res ipsc loquitur. The transaction explains, and carries its meaning and obligation on its face.

Any renewal, under such circumstances, of the vexations to which the American flag had been subjected on the coast of Africa, would be in direct contravention of what was universally understood here, upon the spot of the negotiation, to be the practical effect of the arrangement. It could not fail to give rise to the gravest possible question in the relations of the two countries. I cannot, and will not, believe that there is any such design on the part of the British Government. When it is recollected what honorable and emphatic language was employed, but two or three years ago, on this same subject, by that remarkable man-the masterspirit of his country-whose firm and steady hand

The British Treaty-Mr. Rives.

now guides the course of her public councils, the highest personal pledge is superadded to the most solemn national guaranty. I allude, of course, to the Duke of Wellington. In 1839, when a bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave trade was brought forward in the House of Lords, by the administration of Lord Melbourne, to indemnify officers of the British navy for visiting and detaining any foreign vessels on the high seas, on suspicion, and examining their papers, the Duke of Welling. ton protested against it with all the honest energies of his high intellect and character. If his speeches on the occasion have not been incorrectly reported, he denounced it as a novelty in the legislation of the country, and in the practice of nations. He admonished their lordships that there was "one great nation, at least-the United States of America"-who would not submit to it; that, if there was one point more to be avoided than another, it was that relating to the visitation of vessels belonging to the American Union; and, finally, he warned the Government not to proceed with their bill, but "rather to issue an order in council, or a declaration of war!"

While I feel, therefore, (said Mr. R.,) every assurance which can be inspired by the faith of a solemn international transaction, and by declarations of the most imposing weight in the public councils of Great Britain, that there will be no attempt to renew in practice, under existing circumstances, the visitation of the American flag on the coast of Africa; yet it cannot be denied that the abstract doctrines recently put forth by the British Government in regard to an alleged right of visitation, are well calculated to arouse the timely attention of the United States and the other maritime powers of the world.

I know, Mr. President, how precious every moment of the time of the Senate is, on this the last day but one of the session. I do not mean, therefore, to enter into any systematic discussion of this grave and most important question. But, being compelled to differ, in an essential respect, from a document of very high authority, (I allude to the message of the President to the House of Representatives on the 27th ult.,) and deeming it of very great moment, if an error should have been inadvertently committed in that exposition of the doctrines of maritime law, as supposed to be contended for by the United States, that it should not go forth to the world with the presumed concurrence of the other branches of the Government-which would naturally be inferred, if no dissent were expressed in either House of the National Legislature;-the Senate, I am sure, will bear with me, even at this late hour, while I state, as briefly as the nature of the subject will admit, the principles which I conceive to have been heretofore invariably maintained, with the justest reason, by the Government of the United States.

It is of the utmost importance that there should be no misconception or uncertainty as to the position the United States occupy on these vital questions, affecting the general freedom of the seas. Providence seems to have cast upon us, in an especial manner, the responsibility and the honor of being the standard-bearer in this great cause. While the attempts made, from time to time, by other nations to sustain it, have given way to the seductions of temporary expediency, or been crushed by the force of powerful combinations, the United States alone, through every vicissitude of fortune, and often with fearful odds against them, have stood forth the steady and unwavering champions of the immunity and independence of flags upon the occan. The efforts and writings of our great statesmen in this cause-of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe-no less than the brilliant deeds of our warriors, in the same glorious struggle, are among the proudest illustrations of our past history. We must be cautious, therefore, to surrender nothing which has been thus dearly and nobly won.

The message of the President to the House of Representatives, while denying the right of Great Britain to exercise a general police over the flags of independent nations, yet asserts that if the vessel of another nation--of the United States, for example--be suspected of piracy upon what shall seem probable cause, the seizure and detention of such a vessel by a British cruiser, though the suspicion turn out erroneous, would give rise to neither public responsibility, nor any claim of indemnity to the owner. "The right, under such circumstances," says the message, "not only to visit and detain, but to search a ship, is a perfect right, and

Senate.

involves neither responsibility nor indemnity." Now, Mr. President, I must say, with all respect, that this doctrine of the message seems to me not to have been very well considered, and cannot be easily reconciled with those impregnable principles of public law, upon which we have heretofore stood against the world in arms. I had supposed, that if any principle of the maritime code had been triumphantly vindicated and upheld by the labor of American statesmen, it was this:-that, in time of peace, there is no right, in any case, on the part of a foreign cruiser, to interrupt or detain the vessels of another nation upon the high seas; that a vessel of a nation on the high seas, in time of peace, partakes of the inviolability of her territory; and that any entry on board such vessel, without consent, is, in the eye of the law, a trespass. If a vessel, under the circumstances supposed in the message, be suspected of being a pirate, a foreign cruiser may, upon her responsibility, stop and examine her; but she does so at her peril. If the suspected vessel be in reality a pirate, no harm will have been done; but if, on the other hand, she prove to be a bene fide vessel of the nation whose flag she bears, a trespass will have been committed, involving both responsibility and indemnity, according to the circumstances of the case.

It would not be difficult to show that these principles have, in other times-and those, too, not distinguished by any peculiar favor shown to the maritime rights of other nations-been recognised in the fullest manner by the highest British authori. tics. In a well known case brought before him as judge, the celebrated Sir William Scott (afterwards Lord Stowell) emphatically declared that "he could find no authority that gives the right of interruption to the navigation of States upon the high seas, except that which the right of war gives to belligerents against neutrals." But the whole doctrine upon this subject has been stated in so lucid and comprehensive a manner, and with such self-evident reason, in a despatch of Mr. Monroe, while Secretary of State under the administration of Mr. Madison, that I cannot forbear to quote here what was said by the American Government, with so much weight of authority, on that occasion. In the instructions to our plenipotentiaries for treating of peace with Great Britain, dated the 15th April, 1813, the American doctrine-the matured and carefully considered result of our long di cussions with that power on the subject of maritime rightswas thus clearly and deliberately summed up:

"That the vessels of a nation are considered a part of its territory, with the exception of the belligerent right only, is a principle too well established to be brought into discussion. Each State has exclusive jurisdiction over its own vessels. Its laws govern in them; and offences against those laws are punishable by its tribunals only. The flag of a nation protects everything sailing under it in time of peace; and in time of war likewise, with the exception of the belligerent rights growing out of the war. An entry on board the vessels of one 'power by the cruisers of another, in any other case, or the exercise of any other authority over them, is a violation of right, and an act of hostility."

It is incumbent upon us to maintain this principle of the law of nations inflexibly, and in its undiminished integrity. The inviolability of the deck of an American vessel on the high seas, under all circumstances, in time of peace; and in time of war, with those limited exceptions only which are estab lished by the acknowledged laws of war as affecting neutrals-is a doctrine indissolubly connected with our national honor and security. To admit a right of entry on board an American vessel on the high seas, in any case, in time of peace, is to surrender the principle, and to open a door for the most dangerous abuses.

On this subject, we may learn useful lessons from the history of the past. In our long and bit ter controversy with Great Britain respecting im pressment, unable to find any principle of the law of nations which gave her the right to enter on board American vessels in quest of British seamen, she defended the practice under cover of a right of entry acknowledged to exist in time of war, for a wholly different object. She said that, by the acknowledged rules of international law, we have a right to board and search neutral vessels in time of war, for contraband and enemies' property; and be. ing, in the exercise of this unquestioned right, law fully on board an American vessel, if we find British seamen there, we may lawfully impress and carry them away; though we had no right, in the

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

first instance, to go on board for such an object. This was the British argument, in justification of the impressment of seamen on board American vessels, gravely put forth to the world in the memorable declaration of the Prince Regent of the 9th of January, 1813.

Now, Mr. President, if, contrary to the whole current of doctrine and authority by which we have been heretofore guided on this subject of maritime rights, we yield a right of entry into an American vessel in time of peace, in any case, upon the plea of suspected piracy, or any other,-do we not afford a cover, under which Great Britain, if her pride or policy should dictate, may be emboldened to renew her claim of impressment, even in a time of general peace? She might well say (after the formula of the Prince Regent's declaration) that, being rightfully on board, upon suspicion of piracy, by your own admission, and finding there those we claim to be our seamen, we will impress them, in the name and by virtue of that natural allegiance which our laws declare to be permanent and unchangeable, and which is due in peace as well as war.*

Of all the pretexts for the violation of our flag, the loosest, and most susceptible of abuse in practice, would be the plea of suspected piracy. What are the external indicia of a pirate? A low, long, black-looking vessel, we are told; and, under this description, every Baltimore schooner would be subject to be boarded and overhauled. What, in the modern use of language, constitutes piracy itself? In the plastic hands of diplomacy or power, nothing is susceptible of a greater variety of Protæan shapes. We cannot have forgotten that, in a solemn official communication which the late British Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) caused to be addressed to this Government, in justification of the destruction of the Caroline within the limits of our territory, the citizens of the United States who took part with the inhabitants of Canada in the late insurrection in that province were gravely characterized as "American pirates;" and an elaborate argument from Mr. Webster was necessary to prove that this application of the term was not proper. In the discussions which took place between the same minister and our representative in London, on this very subject of the right of visit, he habitually denominated vessels supposed to be engaged in the slave-trade, as "slave-trading pirates;" and he repeatedly and emphatically appealed to the denunciation of the trade as piracy by the laws of the United States. It is easy to foresee, therefore, how, under an admitted right of visit, and search also, according to the message, upon suspicion of piracy, with a little of the dexterity and boldness of diplomacy in the use of language, the whole of our growing and important commerce on the coast of Africa might be driven from those seas by insupportable vexations.

The only security to the rights of American navigation on the ocean, and for the honor of our flag, is to adhere inflexibly to the doctrine which was maintained by our fathers, and which has been delivered down to us from the great oracles of public law in Europe and America-that, in time of peace, there is no right, in any case whatever, on the part of a foreign cruiser, to enter and detain, on the high seas, (whether under the name of visit or search,) a vessel which bears our national flag; by which, of course, is meant the legitimate and bona fide flag of the United States. In the British discussions of this doctrine, it has been very unfairly argued, as if we claimed some mysterious virtue for the mere outward ensign--"the piece of bunting," as Lord Palmerston permitted himself to call it, "with the United States emblems and colors upon it;" and that any vessel engaged in the slavetrade could protect herself from search by merely hoisting one of these pieces of bunting; and that thus British vessels, engaged in a violation of the laws of their own country--Portuguese, Spanish, and Brazilian slave-traders, expressly subjected to search by the treaty stipulations of their respective Governments-and notorious piratical outlawswould all be enabled, by this fraudulent disguise,

The language of Admiral Sir Charles Napier, in the House of Commons, on the 24 of February last, when the subject of the American treaty was under discussion, may serve as an admonition of the necessity of looking to what may seem to be even remote consequences, in the treatment of these delicate questions of maritime law. In the London Times of the 3d ult., he is reported to have said, while strongly condemning the treaty, that "Lord Ashburton ought to have stated to the Gov. ernment of the United States that we would never depart from the right of taking British seamen out of American ships."

The British Treaty-Mr. Rives.

to pass on with security, before the eyes of a British squadron. Now, Mr. President, it is hardly necessary for me to say that all this is purely gratuitious. The immunity we claim is for bona fide American vessels, entitled to carry the flag of their country. We admit, in the most unqualified manner, the right of British cruisers to visit, detain, and search their own vessels, Portuguese, Spanish, and Brazilian vessels, and piratical outlaws, even though any of them may have fraudulently assumed the colors of the United States. But, to render the act lawful, the vessels thus detained and searched must be truly what they are suspected to be-to wit, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, piratical-and not bona fide American vessels. an acknowledged maxim of universal law, that every party, while exercising his own rights, must take care not to violate the rights of others-Sic ulere tuo, ut non alienum lædas.

It is

Our late able and distinguished minister in France (General Cass)--who, at a critical moment for the honor and safety of his country, and with a promptitude and success which give him lasting claims upon the gratitude of the nation, came forward to vindicate the principles of our American doctrine in the eyes of Europe, and especially of our ancient and chivalrous ally--has furnished, in his admirable exposition on that occasion, an illustration of the subject, from the transactions of civil life, which cannot fail to carry conviction to every mind. He compares the situation of a British cruiser, claiming and acknowledged to possess the right to visit and detain British, Portuguese, Spanish, and Brazilian vessels on the high seas, to that of a ministerial officer of justice, under the muniIcipal law, who has a writ or warrant of apprehened against a particular individual. His lawful authority is to arrest A; but he suspects B to be A in disguise. This suspicion gives him no right to arrest B; but he may do so, at his risk. If the person apprehended turns out to be A, the act is justified by the event; but if, on the other hand, he be truly B, then a trespass has been committed, and an action of false imprisonment lies against the officer. In this action, the damages, it is true, may be materially reduced and mitigated by the consideration of strong circumstances of suspicion in regard to the identity of B, and the little actual injury he may have sustained; but, in every case, the inviolability of the personal liberty of the citizen is maintained, and vindicated as an inexorable principle of the law. In like manner, we can never admit as a matter of right, (however circumstances, in rare and extraordinary cases, might be allowed to mitigate or extenuate the trespass,) the claim of the British Government to visit and detain American vessels on the high seas, in time of peace, because they may be suspected of being British, or other vessels lawfully subject to search, and seeking to screen themselves by hoisting American colors. If British cruisers, under such circumstances, visit and detain vessels which turn out to be bona fide American vessels, they do it, necessarily, at their risk, and without right.

It is curious and instructive to trace the successive phases under which this claim has been, at different times, presented by the British Government. It was first brought forward by Lord Palmerston, in his letter to Mr. Stevenson of the 27th August, 1841. It was then claimed as "a right to see, by an examination of papers, that the vessel bearing the flag of the United States was provided with papers entitling her to wear that flag, and proving her to be United States property, and navi. gated according to law;" and it was to be exercised generally under "circumstances which justify a suspicion that such vessels are engaged in the slave-trade." The annunciation of the claim was met by our minister (Mr. Stevenson) with an energy and decision, and a ready ability, which do him much honor. A change of administration having occurred, the subject passed into the hands of Lord Aberdeen. While re-asserting the British claim, he did so in far more limited and cautious terms. In his letter to Mr. Stevenson of 13th October, 1841, he described it as a right to "ascertain, by visit and inquiry, the nationality," simply, "of the vessel;" and limited it to cases of "the most grave suspicion and well-founded doubts of the genuineness of its character." The claim, as yet, was not qualified by any admission of the obligation of indemnity, in case of mistake. At length came the letter of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, of the 20th December, 1841, in which his Lordship states that "if, in spite of the utmost caution, an error should

Senate.

be committed, and any American vessel should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample reparation." Here, it is readily admitted, is an important modification of the ground originally assumed. But, in the same letter, the right is still asserted, in absolute terms, to visit and detain American vessels on the high seas, when their nationality is suspected, in order to ascertain, by their papers or "other proofs," the genuineness of their character; and we are now, it seems, formally apprized, through a despatch of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, that this alleged right continues to be maintained by the British Government, and will not be abandoned. To this there is but one answer, that the right claimed is still denied by the United States, and will never be admitted or acquiesced in; and I trust, sir, when the official answer shall go from this Government, due care will be taken to guard against any inferences, to the prejudice of those doctrines of maritime law which we have hitherto invariably maintained, from any hurried or inadvertent expressions in the recent message to the House of Representatives.

The people of this country, Mr. President, will never admit the claim of Great Britain, or any other power, as a matter of right, to stop and examine their vessels on the high seas, in time of peace, in any case, or under any pretext whatever. They cannot be reconciled to a demand, thus imperious inits character and dangerous in its consequences, by the promise of reparation and indemnity in case of mistake and consequential injury. They have not forgotten that a similar inducement was held out to a recognition of the odious claim of impressment, and how that proposition was answered by their Government. Mr. Monroe, as Secretary of State, was instructed to communicate the views of the American Government upon it, in the following terms, to our plenipotentiaries for treating of peace:

"It has been suggested, as an expedient for the adjustment of this controversy, that British cruisers should have a right to search our vessels for British seamen; but that the commanders thereof should be subjected to penalties in case they made mistakes, and took from them American citizens. By this, the British Government would acquire the right of search for seamen, with that of impressing from our vessels the subjects of all other powers. It will not escape your attention, that, by admitting the right in any case, we give up the principle, and leave the door open to every kind of abuse. same objection is applicable to any and every other arrangement which withholds the respect due to our flag, by not allowing it to protect the crew sailing under it."

The

The same considerations are equally conclusive against the admission of a right on the part of British cruisers, in any case, and under any promise of contingent indemnity, to board and detain American vessels, whose nationality may be questioned, in time of peace. I can hardly persuade myself that the British Government has yet realized to itself the startling magnitude of this new claim of maritime police. If they have the right to ascertain, by visit and examination, the genuineness of every flag which their cruisers may encounter on the high seas, do they not, in effect, revive and extend to the whole ocean the obsolete claim of sovereignty and dominion which they formerly asserted within the narrow sea surrounding their own island. Every right has, too, its corresponding remedies. If British cruisers have the right to visit and detain all flags they meet on the ocean, to satisfy themselves, by personal examination, of their genuineness,-they might enforce that right, in case of any attempt to resist or evade it on the part of the vessels sought to be visited, by the summary naval remedies of capture and confiscation. This is the settled maritime law, in regard to the right of search of neutral vessels in time of war. If a neutral vessel attempt to resist or escape from the exercise of the right of search, she, by that fact alone, subjects herself to capture and condemnation as lawful prize. The same consequence would analogically attend the right of visit claimed by Great Britain in time of peace, if it exist (as she contends it does) under the law of nations; and a vessel on the high seas, conscious of the integrity of its flag, and unwilling to submit to the indignity and vexation of an inquisitorial visit from a British cruiser, might find herself punished for her contumacy, by a speedy capture, followed by a sentence of condemnation in a British admiralty court.

7TH CONG....3D SESS.

The wise and enlightened statesmen of England cannot but feel that an innovation like this upon the established law of nations, in this, the nineteenth century-involving, as its natural corollary, consequences so startling-would, by a necessary instinct of self-preservation, unite all the other maritime powers of the world in one firm confederacy against them, for the protection of their common rights. I trust in the influence of reflections such as these, joined to that sober spirit of practical moderation which has thus far favorably distinguished the present public councils of Great Britain, to insure the continuance of general peace. In the maintenance of peace and harmony between England and America, there are so many reciprocal interests of the highest importance involved, commercial, moral, and political, that nothing can be wanted but a calm and collected temper on the part of the constituted authorities of both countries, unmoved by those general denunciations on the one side and the other-which are, unfortunately, but too well fitted to inflame national animositiesto bring to a safe and satisfactory termination every remaining question between them.

SPEECH OF MR. MILLER,

OF NEW JERSEY.

In Senate, February 17, 1813-On the bill to restore to General Jackson the fine imposed upon him by the district court of the United States in Louisiana.

Mr. PRESIDENT: The professed object of this bill is to refund to General Jackson a fine of $1,000, imposed upon him by the district court of the United States in Louisiana, on the 31st day of March, 1815, for certain contempts committed by him against that court.

Although this be the humble design of the billthe mere settlement of a private claim-there has been thrown around it an unusual degree of interest and feeling. It has been magnified into a public measure, and is pressed upon our consideration as if it were a great national concern. The political parties of the day are taking sides upon this measure; politicians are making a hobby of it; State Legislatures have passed resolutions instructing their Senators to vote for the bill; and even the President of the United States has deemed it his duty to bring this matter before Congress, under that clause of the Constitution which authorizes him to give information of the state of the Union. Thus, sir, has this private bill been withdrawn from the great vortex of neglected claims, and magnified into a public measure, and glorified into an affair that concerns the state of the Union. The urgency with which this matter is pressed, is not very complimentary to our sense of equal rights. There are many poor claimants, who, for years past, have been urging Congress to decide upon their claims, and who have gone down to their graves bankrupt through our inaction; yet no sooner is this claim presented, than our Justice tears the bandage from her eyes; and, beholding the hero of New Orleans, thrusts aside every other claim, and proceeds, with timid and nervous haste, to comply with his demand.

The notoriety which has been given to this claim, the various and powerful collateral influences which have been brought to its aid, induce me to pause and examine more carefully the merits of this bill.

Neither the political influence nor the military renown which surround the character of the distinguished applicant, shall induce me to regard this claim with more complacency than I would look upon the petition of the poorest man or the most humble soldier that ever served his country.

I wish to confine myself to the simple facts of the case, and upon them, and them alone, to decide this matter. All that has been said about the glorious victory of New Orleans-the services, civil and military, of General Jackson-ought not to affect this matter. They form no part of the facts of the case, and should, therefore, have no influence upon the judgment of the Senate. General Jackson himself discards all these collateral matters, and puts his claim upon the ground that the sentence imposed upon him by Judge Hall was illegal and unjust. I read from his letter, dated Hermitage, August 1, 1842, directed to Jacob Gibson, esq.:

"DEAR SIR: I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, informing me that a joint res olution passed the Legislature of New Hampshire, at their June session, 1842, of which you are a member, instructing your Senators in Congress, and requesting your Representatives,

Fine on General Jackson-Mr. Miller.

to use their efforts to procure the passage of a law, by Congress, to refund to me, with interest, the fine imposed by Judge Hall, in 1815, for an alleged contempt, &c.

"For this unsolicited interpositi. n of the Legislature of New Hampshire to have expunged from the record this iniquitous imputation upon my character, by that unjust and vindictive Judge Hall, sitting in his own cause, from whose fist there was no appeal, it deserves, as it receives, my sincere thanks."

If I could be satisfied that this sentence was iniquitous or unjust; or, even if legal, yet, if it were imposed upon General Jackson for an act required by the honest discharge of his official duties,-I would, without hesitation, vote to refund the fine: for I hold it to be the duty of every Government to sustain its public servants in the honest discharge of their duties; and, although they may occasionally mistake the law, yet, if that were an honest mistake, I would not punish the agent, but rather let the consequence fall upon the principal--the Government-for whose benefit the act was perpe

trated.

Upon these acknowledged principles, let us examine the case. In the first place, we have before us the record of the proceedings and the sentence, certified under the seal of the court. By this record, it appears that General Jackson was regularly summoned, heard, tried, and condemned, in and by one of the district courts of this Government, for contempt of court, and fined in the sum of $1,000. It is also admitted that the General submitted to the judgment of the court, and paid the fine; and the judgment still remains of record, having been acquiesced in by the complainant from that time to this-a period of twenty-eight years.

In ordinary cases, we might here say to the claimant, "you are estopped by this record, and by your acquiescence in its truth for the space of nearly thirty years." It is true that the Government never pleads the statute of limitations, yet there are cases in which the lapse of time becomes a material and substantial matter of defence. The death of the actors in the scene, the forgetfulness of the living, may deprive the case of many of its essential facts. If the State should derive no advantage from time, neither should the applicant be permitted to lay by until death has silenced his adversary, or until some new adventitious circumstance has popularized his claim.

But, sir, I am willing to forego all these considerations, and to look behind this record, and examine the facts upon which it is founded.

What are these facts? On the evening of the 5th of March, 1815, about two months after the battle of New Orleans, Mr. Morel, a counsellor at law, called at the house of Judge Hall, and presented to him a petition to issue a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Louis Louallier, who, as said, was held in illegal imprisonment under the order of General Jackson. The judge, after reading the petition, and swearing Mr. Morel as to the truth of the facts therein stated, endorsed upon the petition the following order:

'Let the prayer of the petition be granted, and the petitioner be brought before me at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

At the time of granting this order, Judge Hall stated to Mr. Morel "that he thought it would be proper for him to write a letter to General Jackson, to inform him that the writ had been awarded." Mr. Morel then states that he carried the order to the clerk of the district court, and then went to his office, where he wrote the letter intimated by the Judge, of which the following is a copy:

"To his Excellency Major General Jackson. "SIR: I have the honor to inform your excellency that, as counsel, I have made application to his honor Dominick A. Hall, judge of the district court of the United States, for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Mr. Louallier, who conceived that he was illegally arrested by order of your excellency; and that the said writ has been awarded, and is returnable to mor row, 6th inst., at 11 o'clock, a. m.

"I have the honor to be your excellency's most humble and obedient servant, P. L. MOREL, Counsellor at Law."

As soon as General Jackson read this letter, as it appears by the affidavits of Mr. Duplessis and Colonel Arbuckle, he issued the following order:

"HEADQUARTERS 7TH MILITARY DISTRICT, "NEW ORLEANS, March 5, 1815-7 o'clock, p. m. "Having received proof that Dominick A. Hall has been aid. ing and abetting and exciting mutiny within my camp, you will forthwith order a detachment to arrest and confine him, and report to me as soon as arrested. You will be vigi. lant; the agents of our enemy are more numerous than was expected. You will be guarded against escapes.

"ANDREW JACKSON, Major General commanding.

"Lt. Col. ARBUCKLE, 3d Infantry."

At about eight o'clock of the evening of the same 5th of March, a detachment of sixty armed men,

Senate.

under the command of Major Butler, were seen marching hastily through the streets of New Orleans; they entered the dwelling of Judge Hall, forcibly arrested him, and conveyed him to the military barracks, where he was held a prisoner until the 11th of March, when General Jackson ordered him to be removed out of the city, as appears from the following order:

"HEADQUARTERS 7TH MILITARY DIVISION,

"NEW ORLEANS, March 11, 1815.

"SIR: You will detail from your troop a discreet non-commis sioned officer and four men, and direct them to call on the of cer commanding the 3d United States infantry for Dominick A. Hall, who is confined in the guard house for exciting mutiny and desertion within the encampment of the city.

"Upon the receipt of the prisoner, the non-commissioned offcer will conduct him up the coast, beyond the lines of General Carroll's encampment, deliver him the enclosed order, and set him at liberty. By command: "THOS. BUTLER, Aid de-camp.

"Capt. P. V. OGDEN,

Commanding troop of cavalry, New Orleans." From these facts it appears

1. That the only act committed by Judge Hall, previous to his arrest, was the granting an order for a writ of habeas corpus, upon the sworn petion of a citizen, alleging that he was illegally imprisoned.

2. That for this act, and this alone, Gen. Jackson ordered the person of the Judge to be seized and imprisoned.

3. That the object of this arrest was to defeat the writ of habeas corpus.

I say that the only act charged upon Judge Hall was the order, "Let the prayer of the petitioner be granted." There is not a particle of evidence to be collected from the record, from the affidavits made by the several actors in the same, or from the various statements made by General Jackson himself, charging upon the Judge any other cause of offence than this. General Jackson did not even wait for the consummation of the order; but, as soon as he read the courteous note from Mr. Morel, informing him that an application had been made for a habeas corpus, the order for arrest was forthwith issued and put in force. It is true that, in the order for the arrest of Judge Hall, General Jackson states that he had received proof "that Dominick A. Hall had been aiding and abetting and exciting mutiny in his camp."

Now, sir, I ask for this proof. Can any of the friends of General Jackson point it out? Can they name the witness, living or dead, who has ever stated a fact implicating Judge Hall in the high crime charged in that order? General Jackson speaks of proof-not allegation, hearsay, or surmise. Surely, no honorable man, respecting the rights and liberties of his fellow-citizens, would ever venture, not only to make a charge like this against a highly respectable functionary, but to condemn him unheard, without having plenary evidence of his guilt. Yet, when we examine the facts of this case, we find that the only proof upon which Gen. Jackson acted was the letter of Mr. Morel, informing him that Judge Hall had granted an order for a writ of habeas corpus. This was the proof that Judge Hall had been abetting and exciting mutiny. The awarding of a writ of habeas corpus declared to be a proof of a mutinous act; the performing a constitutional duty converted into a crime; the great bulwark of human liberty struck down at a blow, and made the cause of oppression and imprisonment! Does the record of any court, civil or military, upon the face of the earth, present an example of an arrest of a freeman, upon proof like this?

After reading that peremptory order for the arrest, I confess that I felt anxious, for the sake of General Jackson, and for the honor of the country, to find some additional fact-even a circumstance that might afford some excuse for a proceeding so bold and arbitrary; but I have searched in vain. No other proof can be found. And the case stands now as it did on the 5th of Marcb, 1815—a Judge arrested and imprisoned for mutiny, upon proof that he had granted an order for a writ of habeas corpus!

I now proceed to show that General Jackson's object in arresting the Judge was to defeat the writ of habeas corpus. This is an important point, involving a mighty principle, deeply affecting the liberty of the citizen and the supremacy of the laws and the Constitution of the country.

If it should appear, from the investigation of this case, that the arrest of Judge Hall was not for inciting mutiny, as alleged in General Jackson's order, nor necessary to the defence of New Orleans,