war.

war:

demand was refused, because the government of the United States had no right to interfere with the judicial tribunals of New York; and the recognition of the destruction of the boat as a public act, had not been communicated to our government by any person authorized to make the admission. Mr. Fox stated to Mr. Forsyth, that he was not authorized to pronounce the decision of her majesty's government upon the remonstrance of the United States against the act in question.

On the 12th of March, eight days after the inauguration of president Harrison, Mr. Fox informed Mr. Webster that he had been instructed to avow the act as authorized by his government, and again demanded the release of M'Leod. Mr. Rives defended the doctrine of the administration, that the act having been recognized as a public act, the individual was not answerable; and he controverted the opinion of Mr. Buchanan, that the principle was applicable only to a formal and declared

He read from Vattel a passage relating to the case of an unjust

" It is the duty of subjects to suppose" the orders of their sover. eign "just and wise," &c. “When, therefore, they have lent their assistance in a war which is afterwards found to be unjust, the sovereign alone is guilty. He alone is bound to repair the injuries. The subjects, and in particular the military, are innocent; they have acted only from a necessary obedience.” “ Government would be impracticable, if every one of its instruments were to weigh its commands."

Mr. R. considered the ground taken by our government as highly honorable. He said: “The destruction of the Caroline being at length avowed as a public act, the administration could not but feel that it was unworthy of the character of the nation, to dignify a miserable and subordinate instrument who may have been employed in it, by making him the selected object of national vengeance.” The principle of exempting individuals in such cases, he said, was founded in reason and humanity, and recognized by the universal practice of civilized nations. " What, then, did it become a high minded and honorable government to do under these circumstances ? Frankly and uttreservedly to admit the principle-to put itself in the right-and to do whatever should devolve on it as a moral and responsible power, to fulfill and maintain the right. It had a higher game—a nobler mission—than to make war upon M'Leod." Mr. R. also adverted to what Mr. Buchanan had denominated a menace in the communication of Mr. Fox. It was remarkable that language almost identical, in a letter from Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth, had not aroused the jealous sensibilities of the gentleman. Said Mr. Fox : “I can not but see the very grave and serious consequences that must ensue, if, besides the injury already inflicted upon Mr. M'Leod, of a vexatious and unjust imprisonment, any further harm may be done him in the progress of this extraordinary proceeding." But I must say that punctilios like these are not of substance sufficient in my opinion, to occupy, in this age of the world, the grave discussions of a body like the senate of the United States. The calm dignity of conscious strength is not prone to be astute in imagining or suspecting insult.

Mr. R. added, that the honor of the country would not be compromised by those to whose keeping it had been intrusted. The president had announced, as the maxims of his policy toward foreign powers, to render justice to all, submitting to injustice from none; esteeming it “his most imperative duty to see that the honor of the country shall sustain no blemish.” And these sentiments found a faithful echo in the letter of the secretary of state to Mr. Fox: “This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the world. Its object is peace, its policy peace. But still it is jealous of its rights, and among others, and most especially, of the right of the absolute immunity of its territory from aggression abroad; and these rights it is the duty and determination of this government fully and at all times to maintain, while it will as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others.”

Mr. Choate followed on the same side, and was replied to by Mr. Calhoun, who contended, that the authority or sanction of his government did not exempt an individual from responsibility to the injured government, even in case of war. But if gentlemen should succeed in making the attack on the Caroline an act of war, it would avail them nothing in their attempt to defend the demand of Mr. Fox, or the concession of Mr. Webster. If it were war, M'Leod would be a prisoner of war, and forfeit his liberty; and his government would have no right to demand his release.

In the house, a debate arose upon a resolution offered by Mr. Floyd, of New York, proposing an inquiry into the objects and result of a visit of the attorney-general of the United States to the state of New York, in reference to the trial of M'Leod. Mr. Adams dissented from the opinion of the supreme court of New York, delivered by Judge Cowen. The great and important question with other nations in relation to this

“Who was right, and who was wrong? Who struck the first blow ?" He held, that the persons connected with the Caroline had committed an act of war against the British government. Nor did he subscribe to the opinion that every nation goes to war on issuing a declaration or proclamation of war. Nations often wage war for years, without issuing any declaration; and the question was not here upon a declaration of war, but acts of war. In the judgment of impartial men of other nations, we would be held as a nation responsible; and the Caroline would be considered in a state of war against Great Britain—the worst kind of

a

affair was,

a

war—to sustain an insurrection. There was very little disguise about this expedition : this vessel was there for the purposes of hostility against the Canadian government. What was the steamboat about? What had she been doing? What was she to do the next morning? And what ought you to do? You have reparation to make for all the men and for all the arms and implements of war we had transported and were going to transport to the other side, to foment and instigate rebellion in Canada.

Mr. Adams defended the course of the administration. He said that, in negotiation, the United States would be held responsible for the personal safety of M'Leod. He approved the instructions given to the attorney-general when sent to New York, and which averred, that, “whether the process be criminal or civil, the fact of having acted under public authority, and in obedience to lawful superiors, must be regarded as a valid defense; otherwise individuals would be holden responsible for injuries resulting from acts of government, and even from the operations of public war.” It was true the British government had been given to understand, that since the avowal that M’Leod had acted under authority he must be ultimately released or surrendered. “And what then ?" said Mr. A. "Is it not so? Why, sir, Indian savages-canni. bals, to whom revenge is the first of virtues—accept of ransom for the blood of their relatives slain ; and is it for a Christian nation, in cold blood, four years after a defensive irregularity of border war, provoked by their own people, to hold a man responsible to their own municipal law for murder, because the life of a man was lost in a nocturnal foray, authorized by the public authorities, civil and military, of the country in whose defense it was undertaken and achieved ? Sir, there is not a civilized country on earth but would cry shame upon us for carrying such barbarian principles into practice.

I ask every member of this house to put himself in the position of a prisoner in a foreign land for an act done by the orders of his government—for the burning of a boat, or the killing of men : I ask every man here to put himself in the situation of M'Leod, either in Great Britain or in any part of the British dominions, and suppose it a matter of negotiation between the two governments—what would he say if the British secretary of state, from a representation that this was done by the orders of the gov. ernment of the United States, and that the nation held itself responsible for the act, should say, of course ultimately we shall release him ?' Now, I would ask, if this would be disgraceful to the British nation.” Mr. A. rejoiced that the letter of the secretary had calmed the irritation and resentment of the British government produced by the inflammatory report of the house. It was one of the best papers ever written ; and the effect of it upon the nation was to be one of glory and not of reproach,

a

The resolution was laid on the table, 109 to 70.

This question was also discussed in the legislature of New York, on a resolution offered by Mr. Swackhamer, of New York, requesting the governor to communicate to the house certain information in reference to the case of M’Leod.

Mr. Hoffman justified, under the British government, the attack made upon the Caroline. The rebels, he said, had gained possession of Navy Island; the drafts of men there had been made from the United States; the officers in command were over our citizens. By the national law, the sovereign whose territory was endangered had a right to repel the danger; and if in so doing he should momentarily pass the line between the two countries, it must be the subject of negotiation. He would ask where the man was in this state who would not have obeyed a similar order from the local authorities. In case of sedition or rebellion in this state,—if a boat were seen daily plying from the Canadas furnishing those in arms with the means of warfare, and orders should be issued by the authorities of this state to destroy that boat, who would for a moment refuse to obey that order? He moved to refer the resolution with instructions to bring in a bill “to enter a nolle prosequi on, the indictment, and to grant M'Leod a safe conduct to his sovereign."

The trial of M'Leod took place at Utica in October, 1841; a special term of the circuit court having been appointed by the legislature for that purpose. The trial occupied more than a week. The jury, after a retirement of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of not GUILTY. There was testimony identifying him as one of the party who destroyed the Caroline and killed Durfee; and there were several witnesses to whom M'Leod had boasted that he had “killed one d-d Yankee.” From the testimony of the defense, however, it appeared that he was during the whole of that night in Canada.

The question as to the responsibility of the participators in the destruction of the Caroline and the murder of Durfee, to the laws of the state of New York, did at end with the trial. A review of the opinion of Justice Cowen, by Judge Tallmadge, of the superior court of the city of New York, was subsequently published, in which that opinion is controverted, and the doctrine of Webster, Adams, and others is supported. Chancellor Kent, Judge Ambrose Spencer, and other eminent jurists, expressed their concurrence in the doctrines of this review. A review of Judge Tallmadge’s review appeared in the Democratic Review, maintaining the opinion of the supreme court, as delivered by Justice Cowen on the trial of the habeas corpus. Those who desire to investigate this question are referred, for the first review, to 26 Wendell; for the latter, to 3 Hill, p. 635.

a

CHAPTER LIX.

THE SLAVE

SCHOONER

AMISTAD CAPTIVES

LIBERATEL.-MEETING OF

THE TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. --SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CON

TESTED - FLORIDA WAR.

In August, 1839, a vessel lying near the coast of Connecticut, under suspicious circumstances, was captured by Lieut. Gedney, of the brig Washington, and taken into New London. This vessel was a schooner, called L’Amistad, bound from Havana to Guanaja, Port Principe, with fifty-four blacks and two passengers on board. The former, four nights after they were out, rose and murdered the captain and three of the crew; then took possession of the vessel with the intention of returning to Africa. The two passengers were Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez, the former owning forty-nine of the slaves, and most of the cargo; the latter claiming the remaining five, all children from seven to twelve years of age, and three of them females. These two men were saved to navigate the vessel. Instead, however, of steering for the coast of Africa, they navigated in a different direction, whenever they could do so without the knowledge of the Africans. It appeared that the slaves had been purchased at Havana, soon after their arrival from Africa. Cingues, who was the son of an African chief, and leader of the revolt, with thirtyeight others of the revolters, was committed for trial; and the three girls were put under bonds to appear and testify.

A demand was soon after made upon our government by the acting Spanish minister in this country, for the surrender of the Amistad, cargo, and alleged slaves, to the Spanish authorities.

The children were brought before the circuit court of the United States, held at Hartford, in September, on a writ of habeas corpus, with a view to their discharge, on the ground that they were not slaves; proof of which was given by two of the prisoners who testified that the children were native Africans. The discharge was resisted by Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for the Spanish claimants, who stated, that the persons were libeled in the district by Capt. Gedney, his officers and crew, as property; they were also libeled by the Spanish minister as the slave property of Spanish subjects, and as such ought to be delivered up; and they were libeled by the district attorney, that they might be delivered up to the executive, in order to their being sent to their native country, if it should be found right that they should be so sent. The counsel presumed that this (circuit) court would not, under this writ, take this case out of the legitimate jurisdiction of the district court, as, if the decision of that court