dently of the federal government. If the parties engaged in them could have been seized at the time of the aggression they would have been amenable to the laws they had violated. Alexander M'Leod, having voluntarily come within the jurisdiction of this state, and while here being under the protection of its laws, it is not perceived how his government can justly complain that he was arrested upon the same probable cause, has been detained by the same process, is required to answer in the same form and before the same tribunals in the same manner that citizens of this state are charged, detained, and brought to justice for crimes of the same description with that of which he is accused. Neither the laws of the United States, nor those of this state, would permit the federal government to comply with the demand of her Britannic majesty's minister for the release of the prisoner, and the president is certainly very right in supposing that such an interposition on his part, if it were otherwise possible, could not constitutionally be acquiesced in by the authorities of this state. On the contrary those authorities not only deem the subject as falling within their appropriate province, but they have also unhesitatingly approved of the application made by the president, upon the government of her majesty, for explanation in regard to the original aggression, and they respectfully assure the president of their satisfaction with his renewed demand contained in the correspondence under consideration.

I beg leave to state that I am not informed concerning any grounds for the representation of her Britannic majesty's minister, that the prisoner's preliminary examination was tedious and vexatious. An examination before commitment is a proceeding which we have derived from the laws of Great Britain, and is enjoined upon magistrates here as well as there, and in all modern countries where liberty is known, out of tenderness to the accused, and not with a view to oppress or harass him. Such was the object of the examination in the present case, and so far from having been conducted so as to be unnecessarily tedious or vexatious, I am assured that the presiding officer was influenced throughout by a hope that it would appear on the examination that the prisoner was not concerned in the destruction of the Caroline.

Her Britannic majesty's minister not only demands the release of Mr. M'Leod, but insists that it is both just and necessary

that the government of the United States shall take such steps. as may be requisite for preventing others of his countrymen from being persecuted or molested in the United States in a similar manner for the future. It is to be presumed that this extraordinary suggestion is made for some other purpose than to produce on this side of the frontier, excitement and indignation corresponding with what her Britannic majesty's minister represents as existing in Canada. So far as it may be intended to apply to this state, I am free to say that no such impunity as seems to be desired for her majesty's subjects can be expected. The people of this state, determined to be rigidly just, have seen without remonstrance, although not without sympathy some of their fellow-citizens who under the influence of appeals made to them by British subjects had disturbed the peace of Canada and violated its laws, abandoned to the justice of the British government. They have not complained nor asked the interposition of their government, although many of their fellow-citizens who had thus offended were tried and condemned, in some instances to death and in others to banishment to an island in the South seas, under special laws and by extraordinary courts proceeding without the intervention of a jury and without the forms of the common law. But the people of this state exact the same measure of justice and respect that they concede to others. It is certainly a matter of regret that the arrest, detention, and trial of one of her majesty's subjects charged with the crime of arson, committed within this state, should be regarded by her majesty's representative as persecution and molestation. But such proceedings are necessary to preserve the public peace, and to the dignity of the state, whether the offenders be our own citizens or the subjects of other countries, and the supremacy of the laws must therefore be maintained.

There is a part of the ground upon which the minister justifies the aggression at Schlosser which I can not pass without remark. It is admitted that the act was committed within the territory of the United States, which was a friendly power; but it is contended that the United States had been deprived through overbearing piratical violence of the use of its proper authority over that portion of the territory, and it is added that the authorities of New York had not even been able to prevent the artillery of the state from being carried off publicly at mid-day to be used as instru

ments of war against her majesty's subjects. The people of this state have seen fit to establish a system of government in which no armed military force is maintained in time of peace, and its militia, the only force authorized by its constitution and laws, can not be called into active service without special legislation, except to suppress insurrection or repel invasion. The ordnance belonging to the state, like its other property, is thus left in time of peace, in its accustomed depositories without the protection of an armed force. It would be out of place here to speak of the wisdom of such a constitution. But it is pertinent to the present purpose to observe that the provisions of law for preserving the ordnance of the state have hitherto been found adequate for all emergencies resulting from any domestic cause. When, however, an insurrection unhappily occurred in an adjoining province, and British subjects complaining of oppression on their side of the frontier fled to this state, cast themselves upon the hospitality of the people, appealed to their generous sympathies, and enlisted a small band from among the inhabitants of the state in a cause represented to them as the cause of liberty and justice, a new and unforeseen emergency occurred. For a brief period, and until that emergency gained the attention of the federal government, within whose province it belonged, some of the ordnance of the state was seized and transported to the frontier by the Canadian agitators and their allies. But the federal government was prompt in asserting and vigorous in enforcing neutrality, and it can not but be remembered by her Britannic majesty's minister, that the public authorities of this state and its militia rendered to government their cheerful and efficient co-operation. The good faith and energy of the general government and of the government of this state in the emergency, were never questioned by any representative of the British government until now. It can not be unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that the conduct of the authorities of this state would have continued to be regarded with candor and justice, if it had not happened that in order to maintain the recent extraordinary demand of her majesty's minister, it was at last found necessary to justify the original aggression out of which the subsequent difficulties have arisen.

In his letter of the 8th of February, her Britannic majesty's minister complains that Mr. M'Leod, after having been admitted to bail by order of the judicial authorities of this state, was again

made prisoner and replaced in confinement in Lockport jail, in obedience to a lawless act of popular violence. No official advices have been received by the executive of this state concerning the transaction thus complained of. From the information which has reached this department, it is quite certain that you are correct in assuming that the conceptions of the minister on that subject are erroneous. So far from its being true, as seems to be supposed by him, that the prisoner M'Leod, after having been admitted to bail by order of the judicial authorities of the state of New York, was again made a prisoner and was replaced in confinement in Lockport jail, in obedience to a lawless act of popular violence, I am informed that the prisoner has not at any time been relieved from imprisonment. If the accounts which have gained currency be true, as they probably are, a judge of the court of common pleas had taken into consideration an application made on behalf of the prisoner before the sitting of the grand jury, that he should be admitted to bail, and had made an order that he should be delivered to certain persons, who had executed a recognisance in the usual form, with a condition intended to secure the prisoner's appearance if an indictment should be found against him; but, before the order was executed, the bail were, at their own request, permitted to cancel the recognisance, and the order was thereupon vacated, and during all these proceedings the prisoner remained in custody. The latter order was as certainly within the legal province of the judge as the former, and the bail exercised a lawful right in receding from the responsibilities they had agreed to assume. There is, indeed, ground to believe that the occurrences were attended by manifestations of popular excitement. But, in the absence of authentic evidence, I should not willingly assume that those manifestations had any influence upon the judge in vacating the previous order, or upon the bail in retiring from their obligations. Whatever may be the truth on that subject, it belongs to the federal government to decide whether any just cause of complaint has been presented to the British government. I trust that it is not improper to state on my part, for the information of the president, that all the proceedings of the judge in this transaction were upon his own responsibility, in the exercise of discretion conferred upon him by law, and were altogether unknown to the executive authority of this state. The executive

learned, with equal surprise and regret, that without reference to the authorities of the federal government or those of this state, and before any session of a grand jury for the county had occurred after the complaint was made, the judge thought himself bound to admit a prisoner to bail in a capital case, upon which, inasmuch as it was known that it had been in its preliminary stages made the subject of diplomatic correspondence between her Britannic majesty's ministers and the federal government, it was not unreasonable to apprehend that consequences of peace or war might depend. Since the grand jury has passed upon the charge and affirmed its truth, the opinions previously entertained concerning the precipitancy of the judge have been confirmed. It is not surprising that, under such circumstances, some excitement should have arisen among the citizens on the frontier in the vicinity of the scene of the original aggression, who remembered the indignity their country had suffered, and who knew that the British government had not only neglected for almost two years to answer the demand of their government for explanation, but had, by its minister, recently justified the offence and demanded the unconditional release of the prisoner, whether innocent or guilty. Nevertheless, no authority of this state has justified or excused, or will justify or excuse, any popular demonstrations by which the judge may have been overawed in the discharge of his duty, much less will the public authorities approve his submission before such demonstration. To me, whatever may have been the nature of the proceedings referred to, it does not seem that either the prisoner or his government has any just cause of complaint against the United States. Upon the principles assumed by the federal government, the aggression at Fort Schlosser was an unlawful, a forcible violation of the laws of this state, resulting in arson and murder. The prisoner was arrested in due form of law, upon a charge of having been concerned in the proceeding. He was properly committed after a preliminary examination. The grand jury to whom the evidence was submitted has affirmed the charge. No one will contend that under such circumstances the prisoner ought to be allowed to go at large. The justice of the country requires that the case should be fairly and impartially tried, and that the accused should not avoid a trial by being admitted to bail. The national honor requires that the plea interposed in the prisoner's