Newspaper Page Text
THE MADISONIAN. 0. 1(15.1 WASHINGTON CITY, THURSDAY, JI NK 24, 1841. [WHOLE NO. 660. THE MADISONIAN. THOMAS ALLEN, Kdllor aud Prgprlalvl, AOENTS. la: wis li. Dobki.bower, 34 Catharine street, Phi luieluhia J. R. Wti.i)iN, Pituliurn, Pa. C W Jamks, Cincinnati, Ohio. Henry S. Mekkb, 404 Bowery, New York. Georuk W Bri.i., Buffalo, N. York. Jacob R. How, Auburn, N. York. Syi.yanus Stevens, New Haven, Ct. E. B Fobtkr, Boston, Mua. Thomas H. Wii.ey, Cahawba, Alabama. Wutun F. Bircii, Favotte, Missouri. Josuii Snow , Detroit, Michigan. Fowzkr 4 WooDWiKD, St. Louis, Mo. Tiie MaDibonian ia published Tri weekly during the sittings of Congress, anil Semi-weekly during the recess, at &5 |>er annum. For six months, $3 The Madisoni*n, weekly, per annum, ?tt , do. six moutha, $1. No subscript.on will be t*ken for a term ahorl of ail inontha; uor unless paid for in advance. PRICK OP ADVERTISING. Twelve linea, or less, three insertions, ? - $1 00 Each additional insertion, ... 85 Longer advertisements at proportionate ratea. A liberal diacount made to thoae who advertise by the year. Dr Subscribers may remit by mail, in billa of boI vent banks, -pottage paid, at our riak , provided it ahall i?x)?r by a postmaster's certificate, tnat auch remit tanct u*M been duly mailed. A liberal diacount will be made to companies of Jive or ow- transmitting their subscriptions together. Postmasters, and others authorized, acting aa our awints, will be entitled to receive a copy of the paper g'aiia for every five Bubacribera, or at that rate per cmt. on aubacriptiona generally; the terma being tul filM. Litters and communications intended for the estab Ishmeat will not be received unices the pottage is paid. I THE LAW LIBRARY. T is the object of the Law Library to furnish the profession with the moat important British element ary treatises upon law, in a form which will render them far less expensive than works of this description have hitherto been. It is published in monthly num bers, large octavo, of about *200 pages each, upon tine paper, and with handsome type, at ten dollarI per annum, and is sent carefully secured, by mail, to every part of the United States. It makes, in a year, feur large, handsome octavo volume*, of upwards of tiOO pages each, and these volumes include works which would co*t, if purchased in the usual foiin, from se venty to s?venty-live dollars per year. From eight to twelve entire treatises on different branches of law, are annually given, and great care is taken that all these treatises shnll be standard, and of undoubted ability and authority. The undersigned has at all times confidently rested the claim of his publication to the support of the pro fession, upon the comprehensive excellence of the plan on which it ia conducted, and the character anil in trinsic value of the production* to which it ha? given circulation. He is unwilling, however, to omit to avail himself of the permission, most kindly given, to publish the following extract from a letter addressed to him by the Hun. Esek Cowen, of the Supreme Court of New York: "I renew my thanks to you for this publication. I can hardly doubt that the profession must duly appre ciate its value, and reciprocate your caie in its conduct and distribution, by ail adequate subscription and punctual remittances. It is in truth, what it professes to be, a 'Law Library.' It has already become a manu al in almost all the more useful branches of profes sional business. I am quite sure it will, if properly patronized, stand without a rival in the extent and cheapness with which it will diffuse that kind of in-, otruclion most sjught by the American bar. It keeps them up with Westminster Hall in those departments of legal learning wherein it is their ambition and duly to excel." Subjoined are a few testimonials, from many, which the publisher has received from distinguished sources from Judge Sergeant.?" The plan of the ' Law Library is such as to recommend it io the support of the profession generally in the United States. It is calculated to enlarge the science of jurisprudence, and, to elevate the character of the profession." From Hon. John Tayloe Lomax, Virginia.? " The references in my digest have been numerous to the excellent treatises published in the Law Library ; for tho extensive circulation which that periodical me rits, and has doubtless attained, has made these au thorities, it is presumed, generally accessible through out the Unitca States." "I am surprised that any member of the legal profes sion should withhold his subscription to your admi rable Law Library." From Chancellor Kent. ?The Law Library is e work most advantageous to the profession, and I hopa and trust that you will find encouragement to perse vere in it." From the Hon. Ellis Lewis.?"Your publication is cheap, and of immense vnlue to the profession " From the Hun. John ,W Clayton, late Senator from Delaware.?" You are entitled to the thanks of every member of our profestion for the 'Law Library .' It is an excellent thing for us." From the National bazclte?" Mr. John S. Littell has adopted the only plan by which valuable works can be brought within the reach of the mass of the profession, and we sjieak with confidence of his under taking as eminently meriting patronage and support. The assiduity and experience of the editor of the Law Library, and the character of the productions to which it has given circulation, do not need our testimony ." From the Hon. It Biddle.?"Of the numerous trea tises the Low Library has placed within our reach, at n cheap rate, there are few. if any, which I would not have procuted e?'en at the great price of imported Law Books." f\om Judge Layton?"Your invaluable publica tion should grace the shelves of every lawyer's li brary." Subscriptions for the Law Library may commence with July or with October, 1H40, or with January, 1H41. Terms?payment for one year, in aih ance, $10. JOHN S. LITTELL, Law Bookseller and Publisher, dec 22-tf No. '23, Minor st., Philadelphia. riAPITOL HILL SUMMER DANCING v J AC A DEM Y.? Mr. K. C. LABBE has the lion or to inform the Indie* and gentlemen on Capitol Hill find ihe Navy Yard, that hi* Dancing Academy will open on Monday,. the 7th June, at 5 o'clock, p. m. at the Fire Engine House. Parents wishing their chil dren to roceive this accomplishment, will please to call at the above place. Days of tuition, Monday, Wed nesday arid Friday, from 5 to half past 7 o'clock. The course to consist of twenty-four lessons. June 5?4t C1URRENCY AND FINANCE, COMMERt E, ) POLITICAL HISTORY, POLITICAL ECONOMY, &c.?Tooke's History of Prices, up to 1839; 3 vols. London, 1840. MeCulloch'a Commer cial Dictionary. Ogden's American TantT, for IH41 and Linden's Industry of Nations, ij vols; London, 184(1. Mscpherson's Annals of Commerce, 4 tols ; London. Von Humboldt on the Supplies of Gold with reference to the problems of Political Eco nomy? pamphlet; London, 1839. The Philosophy of Joint Stock Ranking, by G. W. Bell; London, 1840. Porter's Progress of the Nation, (British,) in view of it- production, interchange, revenue, expenditure, &c. Mushed on the Currency; London. Catechism of Foreign Exchange, and the effects of an abasement of bullion; by John Taylor; London. Legislative anil Documentary History of the Bank of the U. States, and of the original Bank of North America, I vol.? giving the entne proceedings, debates, and resolutions of Congress upon the various Lulls and projects for a n itional bank since the formation of the Government Adain Smith s Wealth of Nations?edited by McCul loch. Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, (in English,) 'J vols, scarce?and many other*. The aln>*e are only a few mentioned out of F. Taylor's collection of works on the various branches of political science which will be found, on examina tion,to be much more lull and complete than can be found elsewhere in the United.Slates. A further suit ply n looked for from London by an early packet.? Book", stationery, and periodicals imported regularly trnm London and Paris. For sale bv .'in,i-1811 F. TAYLOR. ~A LBER1T GALLATIN on the Banks ind Cur ia. rencv of the United Slates, and the present sus pension of Specie Payments, pamphlet, New York, June, 1841. Also, " Remarks" (by Nathan Appleton, Boston, Mny, 1841 i " on Currency and Banking, having re let! nee to the present I >< rangement of the Circulating Medium in the United States " in pamphlet?this day received by F. TAYLOR, for sale, together with with many other valuable works** (both English anil American) on currency, funance, and the other branch es of Political Economy, too numeious forthe limit* of an advertisement, but more full and complete as a Col lection than can be found elsewhere in the United State.. June 12. CONGRESSIONAL THE CASE of McLEOD. in SENATE, Fhiday, Juiut II, 1841. 1 he business before the Senate being the motion of Mr. Rivrs to refer *o much of the President'* Me* ?age an relates to our foreign affair* to the Committee on Foreign A flair*, ami Mr. Calhoun having con cluded ha remark*? Mr. HUNTINGTON ulilretwd the Senate *ub atantially an follow*: Mr. President; The importance of the principle* in volved in the present dincuaaion induce* me to throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate, to reply to the remark* which have been made by the Senator trom Pennsylvania [ Mr Buchanan] and the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun.] To the able and concluaive argument* of mv friend* front Vir ginia and Ma**achu*ettea, [Mr. Ritea and Mr. Choate, j it will not be expected that much, if any thing, can be added; but the nature of the aubject, the novelty ol the doctrine* advanced, and the attack upon the character of the Executive Administration, a* wanting in energy and *pint, will juatify even a repe tition of the vie** which are entertained by those who approve of the courae which ha* been uken by the Administration in reapect to the mattera which have given riae to tbia debate. Perha|M no documents ever emanated from the De partment of State of the U. 8. which have received more universal commendation and approval from the American People, *o far a* they have had an opportu nity to read and consider them, than the letter of the Secretary of State to Mr Fox, and the instructions to Mr.Crittenden, (the Attorney General,) which have led to thi? discussion. Men of all partie*, the public pre** with very few exception*, (?o fur a* I know,) jurist*, and the people at large, have united in *peak ing of theite paper* a* deserving of all praise, for their sound doctrine, patriotic spirit, and firm devotion to the interest* ami honor of the country. For the lira! time almo*t they are, at leu*t partially, condemned, and that, too,, in the Senate of the United Slate* And the Senator from Pennsylvania disapprove* of them ? I. As containing doctrines not'sustained by, but opposed to, the principles of international law. II. As having been written while a marvellous panic was prevailing, as evincing a spirit not creditable to the American character, wantihgin necessary energy, and not possessing sullicier.t American spirit. These I consider gruve charges. They are con demnatory of men who have filled some space in the eye of the puhim ; Who are known to be men having some acquaintance with public law, and who have not been obnoxious to the charge of being under the' in fluence of the fear of foreign Governments. They are men who hold the import int stations of President and Heads of the different Executive Department*. I have heard it said that a former Chief Justice of the United States, after having for some hours, or days, listened to counsel who occupied the time of the Couit in *tating elementury principles never doubted, and having no application to the case on trial, very signifi cantly, yet courteously, remarked lo him that it was to be presumed, from the particular organization ofthe Supreme Court of the United States, the Judges knew something. Soil may be said-of such men as ?he President, Mr. Webster, Mr. Crittenden, Mr. Ewing, and the other Cabinet officer*, that it ia to be prcHumed, from their characters, their pursuit*, and other circumstances, they know something about the principles of international law, and possess something of the character of American citizens and statesmen. 1 hey may all be wrong in the views they have taken of the matter now under debate, but the pre*uni|ition is, that they have not acted through wilful ignorance, nor from any other but the spirit and feelings which should actuate every American funct onary They are to be presumed to be innocent of what I cannot but call accusations which have been made against them until proved to be guilty. And, sir, in the re mark* I propose to make, I intend to considet all tho points which have been presented a* furnishing mat ter of condemnation of the Executive and his conati tutional advisei*. I intend to analyze the speech of the Senator from Pennsylvania with courtesy and fairne**, as he always does when commenting upon the remaiksof those from whom he differs. 1 intend to controvert all the points in which he has condemned the'Secretary of State, and endeavor to show that his views arc not sustained by precedent, nor founded in principle. The matters discussed sre of deep interest. 1'hey have a bearing beyond the present subject, to which they have been applied. I think they affect our character as a nation, as well as the charactcr of the kxecutive and his Cabinet. It is to be seen whether the Executive of the country and the persons whom he has called to assiit him in hi* high office are justly chargeable with being actuated by unnecessary alarm ; with being under the influence of a panic ; with be ing wanting in American spirit and firmness ; wilh i evincing a spirit of fear, alike unnecessary and discre ditable. In this view, the discussion is one of para- I mount interest, and I believe it will result, as others of a like character have done, in adding another laurel to I the brow of him who, while hi* motto has ever been, Equal and exact justice to all nations," has, in con nexion wilh it, practised upon another, equally signi ficant anil patriotic?"Our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country." Before I proceed to consider the topics which have been embraced in the present debate, and which have been elaborately examined and considered, I wish to submit fwo preliminary remarks: One is, that if it should be thought indelicate to introduce this discus sion under existing circumstances, the friends of the present Administration are not accountable for it. It is well known that the mutter of the arrest and indict ment ol McLeod is now pending before the Supreme Court of the Slate of New \ ork u^ion a habeas corpus, | prayed out to procure his discharge The .ci.se has been ! argued before that court. The discussion at the bar ! has closed. The case remains for adjudication, and I is yet undecided. If, then, it should be supposed that a debate here upon the points already ar gued, but not decided, is out of place, as having a ten dency improperly to interfere with a matter under judi cial advisement, and especially as no practical result, having any connexion with the interests or the honor of theceuntry, would follow from thedebate, inasmuch i as no action of the Government is invoked, it should I be remembered that it is the work of tho opponent* of the Administration, ami for which they alone are re- j sponsible. We tiave not soughlthis discussion. We have said nothing which should provoke it. Whatever of real or apparent impropriety there may be in intro ducing it, is to be attributed to those who act on the offensive?not to us, who act on the defensive. The other preliminary remark is, that the effect, the neces sary c insequence of the doctrines advanced by the Sen ators from Pennsylvania and South Carolina, is to re lieve the British Government from the responsibility of ordering an armed force to assemble, and, in time of jieace, to make an unjustifiable and unauthorized en try into our territory, and to transfer that responsibility to an obscure individual, to absolvethe only responsible | party?the nation which avow* the acta* having been j done by its authority, and assumes the const quences i of it?and to seek redress by asking a Slate court to order the individual who did the offensive act, il legally convicted, to be executed ; and when this is done, the national honor has beer) sustained?the national Wrong may be considered as redressed. I am aware that tins is not admitted to l?e a legitimate consequence of the doctrine assumed. I know it is said tliut the remedies are cumulative?that the Government and the individual are both responsible?the one for ordering the act to be done, and the other for performing it. But 1 think it will be found that it is impossible, in the present case, to unite individual wilh national respon sibility?lhat no precedent can be found for holding McLeod liable as an individual, and hanging him at a malefactor, and at the same time looking lo the Bri tish nation for an indemnity for the consequence* of the act as done bv her authority, ami taking such mea sure* a* honor and duty may riquire to obtain suitable reparation. The Senator fiom bouth Carolina argued that this was like the common case of. principal and agent in relation to torts or crimes, both of whom, he said, were liable as wrong-doers. As to the municipal law ot principal and agent, nothing is clearer than that in civil case*, ag to contracts, the agent, who does not voluntarily incur a personal responsibility, is not liable when acting as agent, if he acts in behalf of a known principal ; and a* to torts, he is not responsible, if he act* under an authority which the law requites him to obey, or presumes thai lie cannot resist. Thus, in the case of husband and,wife, she i?, in general, not liable il she commits a trespass in presence of, ami by com mand of, her husband. So, too, he who act* undei the order ot a legal tribunal, in executing a criminal convicted of murder, is justified. The reasonable principle is applied, that ihere i*rfno accountability where there in n.. free agency But I am anticipating what 1 have to My on the aubject of individual re*pon ?i ?ility. ] refrtnt, fur the present, from purt?uinj? it further, and only add that the i**iiu should be present ed fairly to the nation, a* it really exists?a* one in Which the Adrninialration ask and insist upon the re aponaihility of the Uovermnent of Great Britain; and their opponent*, looking awav from that Government, nx the responsibility upon McLeod alone. Such ia the caw presented to the Ainarican people. They wilMind no dittieulty in making up their opinion up With theaeprefatory remark*, I proceed to consider the matters which have lieen preaented in this debate nd it i* well lo look at the precise questions in coii ' ?4eKhJfVi We*rL' ""l n?w discussing the question Whether Great Britain i* correct in her pretension that the deal ruction of the Coroline was justifiable aa an act ol ael(-defence?aa an employment of force for the purpose of defending the Britiah territoiy from the un provoked attack of a band of English rebel, and Ame rictus ; or whether, aa the Government of the United state* regard* it, it wa* a moat unju.titiable invasion in time of peace of the territory of the United States. 1 ni* subject ia not connected with that now under discussion Nor la it necessary lo inquire whether an act done originally without authority from the Gov einmant is exempt from the consequences of personal S,?! ' by re""n <>f * ,uh*equent recognition of it by the Government : for no audi cane exist* The Secretary of State, in hi* note to Mr Fox, u.e? the 8u^Z">K , ''The Government of the United Statea entertain* no doubt that, after the avowal of i a* a public tranaaction, authorized and undertaken by the Britiah authorities, individual* uTar,!d< lhe',o0,Uaht| Pr,nci('''-" ?f P"hlic n ?rnertt' U"a"e 01 Civilized State*, to be ho den personally responsible in the ordinary tribunal* of law for their participation in ft " So in UWffr . ruction* to Mr. Crittenden, he says: " That an in divu ua! forming part of a public force, and acting un n we aMe ,,y ^ ? ?<* to beVld urine! / VI '"i,VU,e PS,""'r "r "'"lefactor, i* a principle of public law, sanctioned by the usage of all United k W "ch 11,8 Government of the United States ha* no inclination to dispute." The inquiry then i*, i* this do< trine, thus avowed and ac uT ^ rV St'7e"ir> ?f State, wbwI doctrine? thoHfvl Or * W? and ?"?'?ined by au posed to b, r " '? ^ Senators, is it op. poa. d to the law ol nation*I I? it, and ou.'hi it to he repudiate,I by the rule* of public law? I propose to answer this inquiry, by referine.e to generalPaX ,w| <dge.l principle*, independent of precedents; a.i.l then to *us am the new* taken by the American Govern ment by undisputed authorities and precedent* ofes wh k a,;,hor"y An.l there are several views U ?f 'h<> each which is rhe exemption from peraonal responsibility in the nrdinaiy legal tribunals, of an individual under the retarv of* St'"* '"u,''( .m ll,e communication of the Sec retary of State, is the lesult or consequence of two plain, reasonable, and well-established principles of international law. They are the following ' O v.rn r!B ,of everv "'^'Pendent, acknowledged Govi rnmcnl, as between itself and other Government to require of lU own citizens the performunr facts j' "' V " "fT,,'",?ry "f proper to promote or el it* real or supposed rights or interests. Tin, riulit grows out of its recognised and admitted independence hon y jud?'' fof ,vh?t ll? own abdav t , ,bre,IS a Ju"1 alllity {o other nations who may be affected by its WO 1 I ho,r SCU *re jll,,'^a''le as against the whole world, then it has violated no law. if uniustili .ble th. law which has been violated ,* the laHf nation,' Bu wh'ihM r,',lr,',", th" il,Jur,'d.nation may seek! Hut whether the acts ,eq?i,ed to be done are" in re spect to other nations, lawful or unlawful; whether hey are justifiable oi not in the new of the law of na tions are inquiries which the citizen upon whom the requisition ,,, made, answers only to his ottn liorrrv ment With such questions, tar as they relate lo bv order 'i f "l ?"n'" u,,lU>r th? ?uthoritv and f,w .[ n Government, as a |?irt of a military 1 0,7''r Governments cannot intermeddle. In re ?|>ecl to hiin and foreign Governments, the authority to make the requisition is complete. If it were not so be*.7.^1,Vr?n"'n! Wh08C w<>r? invaded would of othi'r G v r JU ^ l",h? 'lu,y "hich the citizen. thoHtv FVh 'e"n V" '? "W" ?"P'cnw au another if I J?U' ^ ,bp ?? d< termine for 'dependent Government the extent of its power over its own citizens; and ao there would be practically an end of the sovereignty of every State and, fol owing out the doctrine to its legitimate results' It would empower any Government who should be in ; pen, solemn war with another, to regard and treat fif .t ?o pleased) all whom it took in nun' as treVpa?Ro[s rulei'of ' "nd ttn<1 8u,'.i,ct theiji to tt,.! totnbUn?is ih? ni.i ? . naUon evaded can look beyond the nation invading, and tre?t individuals n, priV(l,p trespassers, they can do it in all cases, whether that of an isolated act of force, or that of an imperfect Cor I . ofsolemn w.rp.ecede.1 by a declaration of ho? war nn . ryc Can. ,Ty r Crin,insl" 8,1 l,rlM""ers of " v , ' '' oOU?d 8U,l,y' "eco'o them as p?v?te malefactors. Such a doctrine would be as abhorrent t If u ' I/0"0" "" " ?" authority I, ollow* then necessarily, from theae considerations hat if a military force is ordered lo be organize.! by ?' pur?we of "ckf.now|riJ?r(i Government, for the avowed purpwe of enforcing its real or supposed rights ajrainst another nation, that Government (*o far as a^o lu Go ernmenls are concerned) can require of ?H citizens hat they organize lor such puiposes, and engage in ie ?r?ani",ion- Th'8 ? 'he riKkt oj ii. The corresponding duly of oliedience by the ci TCiSr.r f,.,U",l,'d the resson. t hel aaau.tim 'I" "kh ?"t(u,ru,U lh*t transacim which McLeod was engaged made S'rrr u,?'' therefore .he at Government wh k*"?W Con"",er'"1 M ?'? ?l of thai liable una..', . '* re*r*r<,etl l>y una* an unjusti a direct infnn! u",of P"*1'" of our territory, and a direct inf ringement of our national sovereignty an.l rai war, it the Government of the United Stale. ... tl... SfewJi"f ' ?.iJ ode AnJ^f i'i T ?'? "r """k Pr"P< r so to de ?e treat thi ! ty*"".?. hy whal right c.tn interference Q"*"' Britain engageJ i? thia ' i V.""y h?v?-Wl?n inU) our bunds, as l. r?, or liable to indictment I If the transac tion b? one which may ju.?y In, t,e.tell by u.T .n were !I? 'yL w,'? nl''"-v"d "??? valent to ari ' W." in an act equi ~ w , War' tiu* W,',e '? hostile it l Ti. l l''' "U'l'orily , and whether i be an laolated act of war, or preceded by a demand for reparation, or a public declaration of war the indi itnaUaT a',l,i*y 'VT"1"1 Th? ' of iiiter the uct in alnn.'/T community which order's of the auhi,- ..' h' .r,*"''0I",l')'e l'ar,y. ""<1 every view of McLe.il1 n' Ur*ft"1* *" Penw"<?l reiponail.ility Great Rr ' r ( ' Government Of ^nlnriU ' T "" "nd. though she vo itarily assume* the responsibility very kindly ab solves her from ii, against Lr will. * ' In connexion w ith the preceding view of the sub ject, it may be added, that the question of the right to enter upon our territory is a public question. It arises between independent nations. The individual* rrr *?? are mm'ase,its'und ?,e p?ncipau are the two Governments, it js no, for tll(, ? , purpose materia to inquire in whose favor thi-, quel ton oughHo be decided. A? to the citizens engaged in i , they are uiere instruments; and if they can be made subject to municipal law, the miction cease, to be a public and palltieal one. It then become, a ! mere private matter between the Government invaded | and the persons invading; and thus every invasion by an independent Government may be treated as au | thorsed, or entirely law less, at tl ,tion of the in [ vaded Slate, and the actors in it treated as prisoner* ol var, or as pirates, robbers, or murderers, as may | seen best to the Government who has taken them j It sjrely cannot be necessary to add that such a prin ciple is as unjust as it is unsupported by authority. Such are the grounds on which the doctrine* set forth in the document referred to rest. It i, believed that they are solid, and cannot be shaken. II is be lied. also, that the opposite doctrines would tend | grmtIv to increase the evils of war, and introduce rgi.111 practices which have been long exploded as un juct and barbarous by the whole family of civilized naiioiis. It personal liability of officers and soldiers is s n forced in the courts of law lor acts done under national authority ; if they are to be treated as crimi nal*, and punishpd as such; and especially, if this I can be lawfully done by the authority of a State Goy ; eminent, which is irresponsible to the foreign Gov | enirient, and witboul the power of declaring war or nuking peace, then shall we be driven back to the piactices ol the most barbarous nations, and the ameliorated co<le of international law cease to exist. A reference to the analogies and authorities bear inj upon the point now under consideration will finish I what I have to say upon it. To constitute piracy, the j diprcdation must be committed without the authori zation ni any lawful acknowledged Sovereign Ineretore, it is said, whether one be a pirate or not j depends upon the fact whether he has or has not ii commission to cruise ; Bynkershoeck, chap. 17. if he acts under lawful authority, the act done in pui^ suance of it is not piracy. So also in relation to re i prisals, which are a means of redress, to be used only | in case of a denial of justice. They are an authori sation granted by a Sovereign, to take the persons and goods of another Prince for an injury committed ! upon his subjects, for w hich justice has been denied I by the Sovereign of the offending party, and are neral or special. It is only the lawful authority un der which the acts are done that relieves them from the charge and punishment of piracy. If such au thority exists, w ill it be claimed that the individuals acting under it can be punished as malefactors 5 It has been urged that a supposed distinction between acts done in a state of war and in a state of peace has not been sufficiently attended to. Hut is it neces sary, to exonerate individuals from personal responsi bility, when acting as part of a military force under the orders of an acknowledged Government, that war should have been declared, or hostilities have !>eeri commenced, previous to the acts complained of ? Let me answer these questions by another inquiry. Sup pose McLeod had been tried on the ?2d of March, land found guilty, and sentence of death .had been I passed upon him. and he had been executed , and im mediately upon this being known by the commanders | of the British squadrons on the West India and Hali fax stations, they had entered, with their Squadrons the port of New York, and attempted to burn and' destroy that city, acting under the orders of the ! (iuecn's Government, and they had been captured, would tlw officers, sailors, and marines have been : liable to ?> 'ried as murderers or robbers,and execu ted : And.vet, in such case, there could have been no demand for redress, and no declaration of war.? j It would have be., ii an isolated act of hostility. The | direct authorities bearing upon the rule of public law j have been referred to hv the Senators from Virginia and Massachusetts. There arc some w/hich I w ill 1 merely cite, but not read. Vattel, SW3, 35!), 383 444 ( Rutherforth, h. if, c. !), 18. Bynkershoeck,' 127^ 1 1.14. 13.i. I'ufleridorf, 52. The authority read from \ attel, supposed t>. be opposed to the doctrine adinil ted by the Secretary of State, has been commented ! on by other gentlemen. I will not refer to it, except I to say, that it scorns to he quite evident that it sus tains rather than opposes that doctrine. A single quotation from Uutherforth, which I think very much in point, is all which 1 shall read. "The members of a civil society arc obliged in gene ral, and those members that have engaged themselves in the military service of it are obliged in particular, to take up arms and to lioht for it, at the command of the constitutional governors, in the defence and sii|i|K,rt of it* rights against its enemies from without. The con sent by which the subjects in general, or the soldiery 111 particular, lay themselves under these obligations is the only net that can, by the law of nations, be looked upon ns a personal act of the individuals who bear arms. In consequenceofthegener.il consent of man kind to consider nations as collective persons, whatso I ever is done hv the members of a nation, at the com runn<l ol the Public, or ol the constitutional governors who speak the sense of the Public, is the act of the na tion; an.l if the act is unjust, the guilt, in the view of thdaw o| nations, is chargeable upon Me nation, and not upon the int/icitlual member*." "And if he was to fight as an independent individual, at Insown choice and upon his motion, those against whom he fights might look upon the act of bearing arms against them such a war as <t personal crime. Hut when they, w ith all mankind, have agreed to consider the several members of a civil society only ns parts of a collective per-on, that act under the direction of the common willol such collective peison, however inexcusable a man, who tights ngninst them, might be, in the view ot Ins own conscience, or of the law of Nature whit h considers him as an individnal, they cannot, consist ently with the law of nations, charge him with having been guilty ol a peisonal crime merely on account ..f his having fought against them. ' " 1 he law of Na ture, as applied to individual persons, would make it a crime, not only in the view of conscience, but likewise in the view of mankind, to fight in sn uniim war. I.ut when mankind have agreed lo keep individuals out of sight, as it were, and lo apply this law only to collective |>ersons, they cannot, consistently with this agreement, charge the parts of these collective persons with any separate guilt for what is done under the ,li rcction of the common sr collective will." "|? the less solemn kinds of war, what the member*do, who act under the particular direction and authority oftheu nation, is, by the law of nations, no fiersonal crime in thein ; they cannot therefore be punished, consistently with this law, for any act in which 11 consideis thern only as the instrument* and the nation as the agent." In what I hnve said on the general subject of the rule of international law, it has been veiv far from mv inientipn to intimate that the British Government is not lobe held responsible for the unlswful act Commit ted by it* nuthority on the c .nlrarv I have ,? id and I repeal, 1 hsi I do not believe any necessity existed for the destruction of the Caroline which can be justified U(H)n any rules of national law Ii such necessity did exist, it is for the British Government to show it. So tar as is now known. I think the opinions heretofore expressed by this Government in regard to the real nature of the transaction, viewing 11 as a most unjus tinable invasion in time of [K-ace of the territory ot the United States, nre correct These matters, however are now before the two Governments. The views of this in relation tolbem are known lo that of Kng land, and sn antwCr from the latter is expected. With these mailers the question a* to the MrmiXion of M. . ,ro"' Personal responsibility is no! necessarilv connected. The latter |T. point deling u?nThe rules of public law, a. applied to independ, nt nations !him n 1 av"WBl Of the net a. a national act may ?hieW the individual from personal liabdily, the nation authorising it will be held to a just responsibility Having said all which I deem it nccessary to say hn:o,;rr;"on "t"? tubL,c itw-1 p^^tocon.id/r which I ne Senator from Pennsylvania ntro.lucei1 and on which hebeatowed much attention. of M. i r Kr,'r compl?'nlagainst the Seoetarv n a ninf?r "^"cc lot his correspondent, ind fur nT n0lfCred'ttt,,|e ,h" American iharactc, "in an ,7 Amen-' charge It i i i W'" fi?un?led, i* no venial 3*countrl .Te Wh,Ch "" " wh" have done character are th!T a"(,L reputation and eiam.ne ihl , ProPer1'y uf ?he nation I p,opoee to rStt^ u,u,ju"r 'hi. complaint, and The SenaTo ci2r.'r 'M' wi"",u' 'oblation, ine senator could excuse the Secretary of State f,.r he minor offence of admitting, in favor of Gr?at Bri nat!on.Pr'DTT ! W'"C,' h<",1 "" f"un(,tt,ll)" 'he law of considered w jf?,nP?red Wlth "'<? complaint to be considered,, was he said, " a amall affair," and that he constrained, as a Senator of the United State* from u proper regard to the American character to comment upon the correspondence of the Secretary ' particularly the instruction, to the Attorney GeneraV The Exc Jwtto?lu,'tr"WnJ' cond"'""^ by him, both in l>e< to the tone and spirit of the reply to Mr Fox Sut^o^1 NrweYorfcn?hWUhiheJOC41 ten<t**n >i York, through the agency of Mr. Crit n ten. Several particulars are mentioned under these fwold I T i"' comP,uin< Before refetring to them, and hU ? a"k the Sena"" what Would he whcbheAd"'' I"* dl,ne in ,he circumstances in which the Admtn.stration wn. placed when these do Z 'hey had been in power mithiiiff ? Or"8; their arum, and .aid and done nothing! Or, m reply to Mr. Eoi, have said Me :rrh ?',hr luw ?w,; ??? nil interfer. , he has been taken within our limits Would fhev3h',v?8l?t l "S " "lurd,'r"'r1 lilt i V stood justified to the nation if such on thiTer I*' COUr'e ofl"',i"n. ?"<i war hi nsued up the Pre?ill'Hni")"111 ?n ?nd execution of McLeod ? I, cred table fo L"V? - Unw'wl>r ?"d "> ? '"annet not creditable to the American character, by reason of the want ot energy and spirit, vhat should lie have done t It u easier to hnd fault with an net which has been statute *A /*r'"h W,ha' "hould have been it. ,ub tor's vi' -w , <H|!,OU, F''eaB**J to hear the Sena tor s views as to the duty which was imposed upon the America" Government after receiving the despatch from Mr Fox and the reply which should have been mad. to It, and the probable results of such reply in Fit, H"y* 1'aJc got up n Kogland, which extended to this country-so great that a part ol the American squadron in the Mediter ranean returned home. And from this I suppose it is to be inferred thai, under the influence of this panic, nr.were made as to principles of public law, and a spirit of fear manifested not creditable to the Atnencan character. Ifthere were any such panic in Lni'land, it is quite clear that it could not have had lis stMtm'n" "If *ct;,'d?'?r8?>on the present Admin h !t >r il ",l"" h'lveproce ded Irom causes existing It tor, the 1th of March last, and for it this Adminis tration are not responsible. Perhap., too, the agitation which giew out of this affair of McLeod, at the lime referred to, may have arisen from an unfounded appre hension that what was considered a well-settled pVin c pie <" internationa! law might f.,il of being enforcwl; but for this none connected with the Executive could Ma'rTr' il l? "ny I'UniC here "lnce thc 4lh of March, it is the first intimation ] have heard even of l?s existence, and it will require very strong proof to convince the iienple of this country that the deceased 1 lesident or his successor, or nny of bis Cabinot, par tlcpated in it, il it did exist. Indeed, when their pro ceedings.are examined with reference to the attendmir circumstance?to which I shall refei hereafter-it wul be quite obvious, that so far from being un.ler the .-lightest influence of an unreasonable apprehension of ostilities, the Executive Administration took high and commanding ground in support of American rights and honor, and while they rendered justice to Great Britain .upheld, m a manly and patriotic tone, the rights of their own country. As to the return of the N.tv fhW!n'.' WC nrC l"'or,I,ed l,y the Secretary of tho , V lhat " ro()u"'c8 some explanation. From des patches sent to the Department by Captain Bolton of hat ship, it appears lhat the great excitement prevail ing in England induced our Minister at lhat court to a.JJress a communication to Commodore Hull the officer commanding the United States naval forces in the A cditerianean, the result of which was that the squadron then lying at Malum left the station with a View to get out of that sea, ascertain the true state of things between the Un,ted Stat.s and Great Britain and either resume their station or return home, accord ing to the result. Whatever blame, if any, attaches to the sudden return of the fng.tc to our shores, it surely cannot be justly chargeable to the present Ad minisiration. Whenever the proceedings connected with this subject are brought before the public, it will be found, think, although I do not speak authorita m ly, that her departure from her station and her re rn home were the result of communications made by our Minister at the Court of St. James, and which possibly may have been predicated u,?on a report made ??t the last session to the House of Representatives by one of its committees, and which I will not stop to cha ractenze For neither of these productions does any responsibility rest utn.n the head of those who are now' at (he head of the Executive Department of the Gov eminent. 1 hey proceeded from the friends and sup porters of the late Administration, and if they had the effect to produce a great excitement among the people of hngland, and to cause our armed vessels lo leave their stations and the commerce of the country there unprotected, the consequences belong to the authors of the mischief, and nol to those who had no agencv in the transaction. b ? Another ground of complaint against the Secretary of stale is, lhat he took no notice ot what the Senator is phased to call a threat by Mr. Fox in his note to Mr. Webster, and which, as soon as he read it led him to resolve to bring it before the Senate. The ob jectionable language is, alter repea ing the demand for release ot McLe.sl, upon the grounds and for the reasons previously slated, "and Her Majesty's Go vernment em real the President of the United States lo take into his most deliberate consideration the se rious nature ot the consequences which must ensue from a rejection of tins demand." If this be the lan guage of menace, it is not more so than is often used towards the most sensitive nations and public lunc tionaries, and which has not been thought to re.iuire animadversion or even notice. My friend from V.r gmu (Mr. Hives) slated to the Senate thai while hold ing the highly honorable and responsible trust of mi nister at a foreign Court remarkable for its high sense ol honor, which would be |>eculiarly sensitive should there be the most remote allusion to a threat or me nace he deemed it his duty to use language sttong and decided, but courteous and respectful, and as open to the objection of menace as that of Mr Fox , but it was not considered offensive, and not treated as at> proximsting to a threat. So, also, similar language w.t? used by Mr. tox, in his previous correspondence Willi Mr. forsyth, whieh did not, so far as I know exc.te any particular sensibility. It ,s to he remem bered, also, that the words of the British minister are to tie taken in connexion with those which pieceded ami it does not necessarily follow that any thing more was intended than to call the attention of the I'r.si ? ent to what might be the result (other than war) of denying a principle of international law, believed bv his Government to be well established and reasonable \VT' \ ' ?Pf1'?*1""1 ?r lh'? principle to the case of ' Government insisted, appealing to the nature ol the consequences which might follow its de mal; anil was it for our Government to say that Great Britain was not serious in this demand, or that she w is attempting to enforce it by menaces and threats 1 l>',d any necessity ex?t requiring the Secretary of Stale to regard it in such an aspect I Was he bound to say Mat the language implied a threat 1 I am sure the slightest examination of the Correspondence will show that our Government was not required by any pnnci 1>I< ot puolie duty necpManly to infer that Mr Foi de M^ned, by the language he uimnI, to intimate thai an appe?l to arms w?uld follow !he repction of the de mand fot the release of McLc.hI The Senator says that common prudence required that I he Secretary of Slate should not have admitted so strongly ami decidedly the correctness ofihe rule of 1 international law, aa claimed by Great Britain. I am sorry the Senator made this suggestion. This nation | is distinguished lor its readiness to accord equal and entire justice to other nations. While it is equally its duty and determination to assert nnd maintain its own lights, il means scrupulously to refrain from in fringing on the rights of others. Il does not mean lo deny to any nation the bandits of the well-established rules which govern the whole family of nations Now what should the Secretary of State have done acting under the scaled conviction that the rfcle of in ternational law k? too well established to l?e shaken or doomed ; lliat individual*, forming part of u public military force and actum under the authority of a le gilliuste acknowledged Government, are not to lie held responsible individually for the consequences of their u< t? ? Should he have {Jumui d ih? cour*e wliirli would seem lo lie indicated by the nature of the cooi plaint made again*! bin?have spoken doubtingly an to the existenceof this tule of public law 1 Should he have purlly condemned anil partly admitted it t ? Should lie have shuffled and evaded, and neither sc know led ([ed nor denied ita existence 1 Would I ln? have comported with the honor and dignity of the American character 1 I truat no such views as thoso entertained by the Senator on this subject will evei prcv.ui in the councilaof tlna nation. I do not believe j lev will. 1 he |hiIicv recommended ia of a charac er which will (>?? pt<?Juelive of no good. If our Go vernment Is ssli.fied that the principle of the law of nations as claimed by a foreign Government, is un doubted, it will aay so fiankly and unreservedly It will not desire to evade the point presented t.y doubt ?UK ?r denying the principle No motives of prudence will ever influence it to adopt such a course. It will never jteek to maintain its .ntereata at the expense of 11* character for manly frankness. It will be just to all, regardless of consequences But, it is said, there is much to condemn in the in struct ions to the Attorney General It is initiated that he should not have been sent on the business connected with the trial of McLeod ; that the latter was before the regular legal tribunals of the State oi New York for trial, and no necessity existed for any interference on the part of the National Government, that it should not have been suggested that were the indictment pending in the courts of the ('nited Slates a nolle prmcqtti would be entered , that counsel for tho accused should not htve turn ord< rod i<> pro cured , and the Senator intimates that possibly a bill' lor counsel lees in this ease may hereafter he pre seined -against the I nited States; and that, from his knowledge <>l the character of the Attorney General, iie is inclined to think that the mission was not a very agreeable one to him. Now, 1 can hardly believe that the Senator supposes that such a hill for fees will be prefcnted for payment to the Congress of the United States; and I dismiss that point without fur ther comment As to the mission of Mr. Crittenden being unpleasant to him, I venture to say he speaks without authority ; and I will add, that I believe, so far from its being one which he disliked, that he en tirely concurred in its propriety ; and from my know ledge o( him and his high character, that the views expressed in the letter of instructions to him met his I entire approbation. The Secretary of State does say | that if the indictment were pending in one of the. courts ol the I nited States, the President would have | directed the entry of a nolle prosequi; and this is deemed worthy of animadversion. But w hat reason able ground of complaint does this declaration of Mr. Webster furnish? If the law of nations protected McLeod from punishment, why should he be tried ? II the avowal ol his act, as an act of the Govern ment, discharged him from personal responsibility, in what more proper, speed) and eflectual way could he | have the benefit of it than the one mentioned"; Would i it have comported with w hat this Government deem ed to j?e its duty to a foreign nation to have permitted a trial to be hail when punishment could not follow > Was the farce of a legal investigation to be got up and pursued when no practical result connected with such investigation could be attained? If, then, the indictment had been pending in a court of the United States, the entry of a nolle prosequi would have been not only proper, but the most speedy and effectual mode of giving effect to a clear principle of public law But the Secretary well knew that the Presi dent had rto power to arrest the proceedings in the civil and criminal courts of New York. So far, therefore, from intimating a course to be pursued by the Executive of that State, he says the Government is not informed whether the Governor of New York has the power of ordering a nolle protcyue, or, if he has, whether he would feel it his duty to exercise it And no instruction is given to the Attorney General to interfere with the proceedings in the courts of that State. Nor is any thing in the nat.ure of a mcnacc, nor even in the way of advice to the authorities of the State in relation to the judgment, suggested The Secretary leaves the whole matter where it is, in the hands of the constituted authorities of the State?re marking as to the course the President would have adopted were the proceedings pending in the judicial tribunals of the United States, but not intimating that the Governor of New York could or ought to do the same, and adding what the law of nations sanctions as just and reasonable, that the fact of having acted under public authority and in obedience to the orders of lawful superiors, must be regarded as a valid de fence ; otherwise, individuals would be holden re sponsible for injuries resulting from the acts of Gov ernment and even from the operation* of public war. It in, howevei, urged that thia Government ahould have refrained from doing any thing connected with thi* indictment and the proceeding* under itj that it should have remained passive, and have suffered them to progress and terminate, without doing an act, or speaking a word, or wiiting a sentence having relation to them. It will be well, in examining this objection to the course pursued by the Executive, to look at tho condi tion of thing* existing at the time when the instruc tions weie given to Mr. Crittenden, and to the actual state ol the matter, as it then appeared and in fact Was. 1 he present Administration came into power on the 4th ol March. That which preceded had slept on tho affair of the Caroline for eighteen tnun'.hs, hcuring nothing concerning the reparation which was required, and not repeating any demand for it. All whs still' and quiet as the silence of the grave. Indeed, so long an interval had chipped, that it seems the British Guv eminent supposed that ours Would not again refer to the subject. But, upon the 12th of March, the often lion of this Government is called to the arrest and im prisonment of McLeod, and a formal demand is mode for his release, on the ground that the transaction on account of which he had been arrested, and was lo hn put on trial, was a transaction of a public character, planned and executed bv persons duly empowered, by the Colonial authorities of the Uueen of Great Britain, to take any steps and to do any acts which might be' necessary for the defence of Her Majesty's territories and for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects ; and therefore the act ol McLeod, being an act of public duty, was one for which he could not be personally and individually answerable in the tribunals of tin United Slates. It is on the 12th of March that Ibis authentic declaration is msile, that the Brilish Govern ment recognises the attack on the Caroline as having been made by its authority. McLeod was in prison at Lockport, under an indictment for murder, for partici pating in this attack It was expected his trial would take place on the VJid of March, a very few .lavs sub sequent to the avowal of the act as a national act, and done under the authority of the (Queen's Government. The trial was to be in a county where the public mind was much agitated and excited. Much agitation had also existed in England, in consequence of what hail taken place heie while the former Administration was in power. This Government had recognised theprin ciple of public law, that an individual torming a p;irt of the public force, and acting under the authority of his Government, could not be held responsible as a private trespasser or malefactor. Every motive grow ing out of its honor and duly required it to use all its constitutional power lo preserve this principle invio late, for it was this Government, and not that of the State of New York, which was to be held responsible for its refusal or omission to do what it could with propriety do to give the prisoner the benefit ofthis lule of public law. What, then, under these circumstan ces, was the President to do 1 Having authentic and satisfactory evidence ofthe avowal of the act by Gn at I'htain as a national one, and fully admitting the prin ciple of international law referred to, whot did honor and duty require? Was he to do nothing, because an indictment was (lending and lo be tried 1 Was In to remain entirely passive, and neither to say nor do any thing ( If McLeod had been tried and i xccuted, and w ar hud ensued as the consequence, would the Administration have stoisl justified to tile country 1 Would it have been sufficient to have smd that the Go vernment ofthe State of New York had acted in the manner according to its sense of justice and propriety, ahd therefore there was no tost cause of complaint ? And, now, irhal ira? the action of the President, under the |ieculiar circumstances in which he was placed! Did fie attempt to interfere with the regular administration of the laws in the Stale of New York? Did he even advise or suggest what course her Gov ernment should pursue? Did he recommend a nollr prosequi to be entered? Did he intimate that person* confined under |iidicial process could lie liberated from confinement otherwise than by judicial process? Very tar from sll this was his eomfuct He did that only which wis made necessary and proper by existing cu numstances, snd which was in entire subordination to the rule that the discharge of McLeod Wai to be sought in a manner conformable to the principles of Isw arid the proceedings of conrts of judicature He thereliirn directs the Attorney General, the confidential law offi cer ofthe Government, to proceed to the Slate of New i ork , to carry with him the authentic evidence of the recognition by the Butish Government, of the de struction of the f'aroline as an set of public force, done by national authority, to suggest to the counsel of the prisoner that the President felt the importance of transferring the trial from the scene of the excitement to a more remote county ; to furnish the counsel with the evidence ol the recognition just mentioned ; to see that the prisoner had the assistance of skilful counsel