Professional Documents
Culture Documents
U.S. Senator James Buchanan Pennsylvania - Vattel in Congress 1840-1841
U.S. Senator James Buchanan Pennsylvania - Vattel in Congress 1840-1841
OF
z
characterizing the nature of the service they were >reience for making this statement has most pro'jto perform, declared that he wanted fifty or sixty >ably arisen Irom a custom too common among us
desperate fellows, who would be ready to follow of pnblishing diplomatic correspondence, whilst
Slim to the devil. Under the authority of this Col. the negotiation to which it relates is still pending.
McNab, now Sir Allan McNab, (for I understand Mr. Stevenson, in his letter to Mr. Forsytn of ihe
lie has since been knighted by Q.u<>n Victoria,) 2d July, 1839, employs this language:
I regret to say that no answer has yet been ciren to m;
this body of men, with Captain Drew at their
in the case of the Caroline. I have not deemed it proper
iiead, passed across the Niagara river at the dead note
under the circumstances, to rjresa the stihject without lurvhe:
lionr of midnight, wilhout previous notice, and ntlriictions from your Department. If it is the wish ol 'hf
[iovernmcnt lhal t should do 60, I pray t>.) be informed of r.
-while the people on board of the Caroline lay re and
the degree of urgency lhal I am to udupt."
posing under tie protection of American laws, and
made an aliack on unarmed men, who were pri- To which Mr. Forsyth replies under date of Sep
Tate citizens, not connecied in any way wiib ihe tember 11, 1S39, as follows:
"With reference to the closing paragraph in your commuti
resistance to British authority, and murdered at cation
Deparimeril, dated 2d of July last, it is proper i
Jeasl one of their number wiihin the American ter inform toyouthethat
no instructions are ai present required f<
ritory. These barbarians, regardless of ihe lives again bringing forward the question of the 'Caroline.' /Act
frffjiitnt cotiTtrsatioJis ifith Mr Fox in rtgcrd
of those who may have remained on board, nn had
sutijtct. one of very recent date; and, frtm Us Imc, 11
moored the boat, towed her out into the middle of this
Prtsi'i' nt epf.cis the British Governmeni tcill ansicer j/oi
*he rier, where a swift and irresistible current application in the case, tcilhout much further delay."
coon huriied her down the falls of Niagara, and The Senate will thus perceive that ih re is n
Jo this hour it is not known how many American foundation in this correspondence for the prete]
citizens perished on that fatal night. This is no that the American Government bad abandone
dancy picture.
lh pursuit of this question, unless it may bet
Now, a* 10 the principle of the law of nations garbling the note ot Mr. Forsyih, and suppretsin
"which applies to such a case, lhat pure patriot and ihe sentence which I have just read.
eminent juris:, John Marchall, has eipre^ed it with
Whether the administration of President YJ
jgreat force an>4 clearness. He says lhat
Buren pursued its remonstrance with suffice
"The jurisdiction o!' a nation, within iis own territory, is e:_ energy is not for me to say, although 1 beta
elusive and absolute. Ills susceptible of no limitation not im
posed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an ex they did, but that forms no part of the qu&stii
lernal source, wouM imply a diminution of its sovereignty to now before the Senate. It teems tha', from I
ahe extent of that restriction, ami an invesimenl of that sove
Jeignty to the same exlcnt in that ijower which could impose conversation of Mr. Fox, Mr. Forsyih was indue
to believe lhat a speedy answer would be given.
uch restrictions."7 Cranch, 116.
And u.'iiin:
On ibe of November, 1840, this unrortuni
"Every nation has exclusive jurisdiction over the waters ad man, Alexander McLod, came voluntarily will
jacent to its shores, to the distance of a cannon shot, or marim
the jurisdiction of the United Slates. I am inclii
Jeague." 1 Oallis,C. U. R. 63.
According to ihe settled law of nations, if the to believe that ihe vain boasting of this man, as
Caroline had been a vessel of war on ihe h'gh his presence and participation in ihe attack en i
seas, belonging to the insurgent*, and afier an rn Caroline, has occasioned all Ihe difficulty wn
^agement with a British vts=el had been pursuec now exists. I rather think he was not present a:
within a marine league of the American shore, our captu'eof lhat vessel, and this fact, if it had bi
xational sovereignty, as a nentral power, would im- wise'y used, would have afforded the means o;
anediately have covered her, and a hos'ile gnncoulc justing the difficulty to the satisfaction of boih |
lie! have been fired against her wilhout affording tias. But he came npon the American soil, a
us grounds for juM complaint. If, for example in the company of American citizens, openly DO
Ihe Briti-h and Freach nations had been at open ed that he had belonged to Drew'scapluring squ
war, and a French vessel, in flying before Brilish ran. In consequence of these assertion!:, be
pursuit, should have been driven within a marine arrested by the local authorities, and indicted
league cf the American coast, all further acts o murder. This stale of things gave rise to a ca
ijostility towards her must have instdnily ceased, spondence between Mr. Fox and Mr. Forsjth.
w we, s ihe neuiral power, would have been correspondence resulted in this: ibat Mr. Fur
Bounded in he most sensitive point, namely, tha expressed it as his opinion, and that of the Prrsi
Vof our sovereignty.
of the United Stales, lhat under the iaw 01 nai
I shall not here argue to prove lhat in this case the avowal by the British Government of the
there hits been a gross violation of our national so- ture of ihe Caroline, should such an avowa
-vciriv.nl,1, because on that point no gentleman, 1 made, would not free McLeod from prosecutu
am sure, does or can entertain a doubt. That be the criminal courts of ihe State of New Yoik.
ing clear, the American Governmeni at once re effect was merely cumulative. It did not take '
anonstrated in strong and forcible, ar.d even elo the offenceof McLeod, but added thereto, acd i
quent, terms, through ou- Minister abroad. The it a national as well as an individual ofTrnce.
letter of Mr. Stevenson on that occasion, does him legal prosecution of McLeod, and the applic
great honor, indeed. Repealed atlempls were made to the British Governmeni for saiir-facti(>n,
o induce the British Government to answer this independent of each other, and might be sepal
remonstrance, but ail in vain. It is tro that i and simultaneously pur?ntd. But whetUri
lias been stated in the British House of Commons were the true principle of national law <.i
>y one of the British minis'ers, that ihe American Mr. Forsyth very properly said that the qui
Government had finally given up the question, must be decided by the judiciary of New
a:ri did not intend to insist upon an answer. The and tha', if the posiiion 01 Mr. Fox were
.jis leiter an an. thing, it is to ihe letter ofMr. Forio7~V~"~ lo Mr- Fox OD IDe 26ia December
1840. I will not trouble the Senate lo read that
paper;
they may find it in document 33, page 4
happier, safer, and more secure And what
is the character of the letter ofMr.
question for American righ's and Fox? It commences
with a peremptory and conl
elusive settlement of the whole matter, so far as the
; ,Wnen 'he trial came on, Mc; had two ground! of defence: first Bntisa Government is concerned. It is not suffi
nct^been present at the capture of the' cient for that Government to say that they take the
responsibility of the act of McLeod upon them
Klvu7'-^* *'?** Q* as\d public a"! selves, but they even jusiify in the strongest terms
^ W'K aa*or,"}'- If. i" 'his state of things, ihe capture of the Caroline itself. Yet here is
Mr. Webster on the 24ih of April, arguing a
SM^^
a "t;eLpdem de!ay- lhe I"*
question which the British ministry had settled six
onKi probabJy soon have jett|-J-- --
to I
11 " do not say surrender McLeod
1, in Parliament, to the British ministers --- -!.. , vlie Caroline shall be left opn
ioat
would
not
be acco'ding to the manner of
CR uussubjcct, and a hieh excitement had been
John Bull when he puts himself fairly in motio"
frwJa>A
"Vh*! Eonnlryen every comrover- He does not stop to argue, but at once cuts the
ywjj, Aaena, because our side of the question knot without the trouble of giving any reason
. Stevenson had remonstrated in the most urd submitted to the British Go'ear m the habit of reading some of the
a mass of testimony, but no
rna!s, and, so far as I have observed
KG whatever was taken of his communication
. toe question even in relation to the
no reasons given for their determination Mr*
boondar/, had never to this da
or """" ""' Government, in hall a sentence
.
svSt.ayw!as
-Q--
Wl-W, VVtUU
I1UI
I
T,ent,had been raised on lhe McL'od
-sd km* defiances had been uttered on
Our remonstrance, when this haughty reply was
vxa. ead . iJTOeof0wmnoM' Threats had written, had been pending for three year?.
Ijj, '. ln ca.*!.?? American Government io?Jr' ?"?** in his Ieller of 36'h December.
^ *Sl^ re:aT McLeod in custody. An at- 1H4U, had argumentatively stated lhe whole
case, setting forth lhat ihe avowal of McLeod's
^*.lbe behef that wa' was imp-nding; and act, should it be assumed by the British Go
"i- success, that the American fleet in the vernment, so far from doing away with our
i?aa, or at least a portion of it, has actu ground of complaint, \reat only to increase it
;d h .me, while all our vesselj in lhat It was cumulative, not exculpatory. Whilst it
a ad gu*d tse straits and gone into the At- would aot relieve McLeod from personal re
ssome pcop.'e h-re even, other than the la- sponsibility, it would seriously implicate the Bri---, ^.teaice a:raid that the British fleets would ush Government in his guilt. And how is that
,3i cor coast and lay our cities in ashs A argument answered? In this haughty, imperious
JmOoaj panic prevailed for a time among those sentence:
Mud .eak nerves and then, to crown all, "Her Majesty's Government cannot believe lhat the Govern
J* .tter ot Mr. Fox to Mr. Webster. Th, ment of lhe l.nited Crates can rpnllv iniAn.1 in ..
;f ***** hav. I freely admit, much to recom
~^,,boi we all know lhattheii dlplomatic posince banished. '
L' ^T** y**1 cf otber European nations, has ongHere
argument attempted, no anlhority
' a character bold, arrogant, and over cited, butis anosimple
declaration put forth in the
?- John Ball has ever preferred to accom- strongest term: as to the
"atrocity" of the principle
oai by mam force which otber nations fur which the American Government
had been se
:,r* VfPted y diplomacy. I come nw riously contending. But the crowning
point of
*Qcr of Mr. Fox, and such a letter! This this mjulting letter is yet to come, and I undertake
^ rfce more imposing from the fact that it was to say that it contains a direct threat from the
r- *oxs own comprsilion, but is an official
"canon from the British Government. British Government. I am not extensively ac
quainted with the language of diplomacy, but I
^^appears from its first sentence, which is certainly
have not seen any thing like this threat
in any official communication between civilized
,,o.
is msiructed by i,i. Govern. ind friendly nations for the last fifty years. I hope
1 may be mistaken in my view of the language, but
iCr6 it ISt
<' *Q omcial communication from the "But be that as it may, her Majesty's Government formallv
!?reniment Ihem3e!*es- I' is not my de- demand upon the pound, already stated, the immediate re tfea occasion to excite either here or elsc- ease of Mr. McLeod; and her Majesty'* Government entreat the
consideration the seriout nature of the consequences which < blame in not noticing language which I consider
must ensue from a rejection of this demand."
containing a very distinct and intelligible thre
JIB m the face? With fiery expedition be has his the defence of McLeod; it having been imposed as
Attorney General on the way to Lockport; and I a duty on our Attorney General to see that "he had
ar.nii bol ihiak, from my personal knowledge of skilful and eminent counsel."
tilt officer, thai the mission on which he .v.v em
Now the-e ar features in ;his transaction any
ployed co j ; not have been very agreeable to h-m. thing but creditable to our national character. I
He informs the Biitish Government at once, for think that sufficient decision and firmness have not
ft ought never to forset that the letter to Mr. been displayed by the Ametican Secretary of
Cfittenden is in substance the Secretary's answer Sta'e. It will ever prove a miserable policy to
io Mr. For, thai if it were in th President's pow attempt to conciliate the British Government by
er to enter a nolle preaequi against McLeod, it concession. It w;s the maxim of General Jackson
sbmUl be done without a moment's delay. "If that, in oar foreign relations, we should ask only
this indictment," says he, "were pending in one what was right, and submit to nothing that was
of the Courts of the United S:ats, I am directed to wrong; and, in my judgment, the observance of
ay that the President, upon the receipt of Mr. ihat maxim is ihe very best mode of preserving
rut".~ last communication, would have immedi peace. When a nation submits to one aggression,
ate!; directed a n*Me prosiqM to be entered." But a; another will soon follow. It is with nations as it is
iis was not in Mr. Webster's power, the Gover- with individual-. Manly and prompt resistance
wrofNew York was in the next place to be as will secure you from a repetition of insult.
sailed, in order to accsmplish the same purpose. If you yield once, you will be expected to
Mr. CriueaJen was informed thit he would ''be yield again, and then again, till at length there
iuraished wi;ii a copy of this insinuation, for the is no end to submission. 1 do not pretend
use of UK Executive of New.York and the Atior- that Mr. Webster has done wrong intention
aey General of that Stats." "Whether," says ally; all I mean to say is, that, in my judgment, he
toe Secretary, ia this case, "the Governor of New has not, in this instance, displayed a proper and
York ha ?e 'bat poorer, or, if he have, whether he beeonvng .flmmcan spirit. If' he hid waited a lit
oaJJ feel it his duty to exercise it, are points upon tle longer before he prepared his instructions to
rhe Attorney Genera!; il he had taken time for re*ai<h we are not informed."
Bat ;V Governor of N-w York proved to be a I flection before he despatched that officer crusading
wry restive sabjec'. He felt no inclination what- to New Jfork, hi; conduct would probably have
{ver So enter a nolle proseq\d against McLeod. I been different. According to the practice of diplo
hare seen, somewhere, a correspondence between macy, a cnpy of thfse instructions was doubtless at
iat oScer and the President, but I cannot now once sent to Mr. Fox. It is certain that they were
iuuit. The tone of this correspondence on the j known to the British Government befoie the 6ih of
fart of the Governor evinced a spirit of deter- -May, because on that day they were referred to by
ained resis'ance to the suggestion of trie Secretary. Lird John Russell on 'he floor of the House' of
Tie Goveroor c 'mplained thit the District Attor- Commons as a document in possession of the BriMy of ih Ua.trd S'a'es was acting as the counsel j tish Cabinet.
c.'McLeod. This, however, according to the ex- j I shall now offer a few remarks on the question
plaaaticn of the Piesident, happened by mere ac- of public law involved in this case, and then close
cdent, the Attorney having been retained as coun- what I have to say. I sincerely believe the Adel some time befou his appoit.tment. The corres- ministration of Mr. V<n Buren was perfectly corat all event', is sufficient to show that rect on this doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Forsyth.
Governor Seward did not participate in the views If I had fnund any authori'y to induce me to en
ud feelicgs of the Secretary of S'ate towards tertain a doubt on that poinr, I wou'd refer to it
UeLeod, am! we know th.it he did not approve of most freely. I now un lertakc tossy that the only
circumstance which has produced confusion and
ncl^t pnstijul in his ca>e.
BBC tie Avorney General of the United States doubt in the minds of well-intormed men on this
as irmed r: h inductions from the Secretary of ; subject is, that they <io not make the proper disSta^e, to meet every contingency. If McLeod ' Unction between a s'a'e of national war and na
tes!; not be discharged by a nolle prosequi; if he 1 tional peace. If a nation be at war, the comrsand
a.'jtbe tried, then Mr. CnueDden was to consult! of the sovereign power to invade Ihe territory of its
d'i counsel, and furnish 'hem the cvi- enemy, and do battle there against any hostile
ma'erial to his defence, and he was even "to force, always jns'ifies the troops thus engaged.
-ft ihat he 'aave iki!ful and eminent counsel, if| When any of the invaders are seized, they are
sach be not alreidy retained." It is no wonder j considered as prisoners of war, and as having done
ia: it appeared very strange to Governor Seward j nothing but what the laws of war justified them in
a Sad the authorities of the United States thus ac- doing. In such a case they can never be held to
arelvand ardently enzaged in defending McLeod, answer, criminally, in the courts of Ihe invaded
~bi]=t the anthoritifs of New York were enlisted country. That is clear. The invasion of an ene
my's territory is one of the rights of war, and, in
rub equal v:sor in his prosecution.'
The de'esce of this man, who had no claim to all i;* necessary consequences, is justified by the
ptcaliar favor, eic^pt what arose from an earnest i laws of war But there are offences, committed
feiire to pleae and .satisfy the British Govern-! even in open war, which the express command of
ea', became the cbj;ct of the Secretary's pecu- the offender's sovereign will not shidd from exemr solicitude, and ;his, too, in the face of a plain. plary punishment. I will give gentlemen an ex<
ample. A spy wi'l be hum, if caught, even though
pabte menac? from that Government.
Tae next thing we might hear would be a bill of | ha acted under the express command of his sovefe.es against this Government for I reign. We might cite the case of the unfortunate
ame_ at peace, a man taken in the flagrant act o own laws, wh'ch are never to be extended to the
:in-ion and violence cannot be made a prisone intercourse between nations at peace.
C'TU. McLei .:, however, is not lo be treated o
The principle assumed in Mr. Fox's lelier is welE
-j principle, and punished under our laws if b calculated
for the benefit of powerful nation*
x tailty, lest we should offend the majesty o againsi their weaker neighbors. (But in say
&?lan<L The laws of New York are to be null, ing ibis I do not mean to admit that we are a.
wl.acd the murderer is to run at large.
weak nation in comparison with England. W
Bit if ihe principle laid down by Vatiel be soum do not, indeed, wish to go to war with her, yet &
u4 ;rae, all difficulty at once vanishes. If sue am confident in the blief that whatever we might
a offender be caught in ih? perpeiration of a cii suffer during ihe early period of such a contest
aita'. ac% he is thtn pnmshed for his crime. H would be amply compensated by our success be
os:n ;o be tried for it at ieas', and then, if (her fore we reached the end of it.) But let me present
any mitigatting circnmsiances in his case an exam pie.
:sf the sake of good neighborhood let him escape
Let us suppose thst ihe empire of Russia haar
ftsr conviction, by a pardon. There wil
i be no danger of war from this cause. Let me by her ride a ccnlerminons nation, which is compa
nTjjcse a Ci.se. Suppose Colonel Allen McNab ratively Wfak. A Russian Colonel, during a sea
iboald lake u into h:s head that there exists in the son of profound peace, passes over the boundary,
tV.ei Stales a c^n-piracy aga:ns! :he Briush Go and commits some criminal act against the citizens;
reiEmenu and should believe that he could unra of the weaker nation. They succeed, however, in
7el the vfccVe plot by seizins on the United State; seizing bis person, and are about to punuh hint
mail :n iis passage from New Y,-rk to Buffalo according lo the provisions of iheir own laws. Buc
H? place? hjQ>eli at the head of a party, come; immediately the Russian double-headed blact
rer the hae. acd seizes and tobs the mail; but in eagle makes its appearance; a Russian officer saya
'JK ae: he n overpowered and arrested, and he is to the authorities of the weaker ration, stop; lake
;Ldic:<cj before a criminal court of the Unitec off your hands; you shall not vindicate jour laws
Sales. Will it be maittained, il ;he Brhiih and sovert ignly. We assume this man's crime as
GoTerBicett should say, we recognise the ad o a national act. What is ihe consequence? The
McNai :n robbinsr your mail as we have'alreadj rule for which Great Britain contends will in thiscaso
'sed lha! of his burning your steamb"a compel the injured nation, though th weaker, to
ing yonr citizens, that Mr. Webster woulc declare war in the first instance against her Mrongec
ned in directing a nolle proseqvi to be enteret neighbor. But she will not do it; ihe wil! not be
come ihe actor, from the consciousness of her,
a ts favor, and thus suffer him tv go free?
Idc sot say thauhe British Government would weakness and the instinct cf self-pre-crvation.
w in this manner: but I put the ca.se as a fair il- Phis principle, if established, will enable the
:i>irat>cn cl" ihe argument. There was one case in strong to insult the weak with impunity. ' But
is-eli something very lika this might have hap- ake the principle as laid down by Vaii^l. The*
praed, and it was even ihought probable that it weaker nation defends Ihe majesty of her owrt
*;j'flj happen. It was reported that an expedition an-s by punishing the Russian subject who had
tai been planned to seize the person of McLeod, iolated them; and, if war is to ensue, Russia must
iac to carry him off to Canada; and I belhvc thai assume the responsibility of declaring it, in tho
i very diamgoished and gallant general in th ace of the world, and in an unjust cause, against
Ct;*d Sla'es servic", (Gen. Scott)an officer for he nation whom :he has injured. It is said that
Boai, m commc-n with his fellow-citizens, I cht- >ne great pnipose of the law of nations is to pror--jiioe highest respect and regardwent, in com- ect the weak against the strong, and never was
iasr with ibe Aforney General, lo Lockport; and liis tendency more happily illustrated than by,
r;s conjectured that he had received orders to bis very principle of Vatttl for which I am coa^
fcK McLeod aad defend the Lockport jail against ending.
aj iceauioa of Sir Allan McNab or any other
ihtrefcre believe that the Secretary of State
?eno.
was as lar wrong in his view of international law,
Sapytw now that such an expedition had beon s in his haste to appea-e the British Government,1
ffi oc ;K, ihat ii bad succeeded, aad that MtLfod i the face of a direct threat, by his instructions lot
had teen seized and carried off in triumph, ihe VIr. Critlenden. The communication of thse in^i taii'D, being still in profound peace. The iructiens lo that Government, we know, had thet
*scoe cf a prisoner is a high criminal offence. esired effect. They went out immediately to>
Waii wcn'.d have been done wilh McNab if he England, and no sonner wtre they known on that
4*3 Tokntanly come wiihin our jurisdiction and i<le of the water, than in a moment all was calnx1
** aaeved} Ifhecnuidbe indicted and irieri nd tranquil. The storm, portending war, passed}
^i ?cisbed before the Brilish Government should way, ami tranquil peace once more returned anot
'e time to recognise his act, very well. But if mile J over the scene. Sir, the British Govern
, thea, at the moment of such recognition, he ment must have been hard-hearted indeed, if a pe-|
L *-o.<i be no longer responsible, and must forthwiib usl of those instructions did not soften them, anij
* icfree. The principk- cf Vattel, r ghtly under- fford them the most ample satisfac'ion. This*
toi, abfoltitely secures the lerriiorial severe gnty miable lemper will nevr even be ruffled in the)
1 MCI in lime of peace by permi ting them to ightest degree by the perusal of Mr. Webster's
fc all mvasinns of it in their own criminal etter to Mr. Fox, written six weeks afterward&J
**8,andhu doctrine; eminently calculated lo "'he matter had all been virtual}- ended before its dateJ
Itarve peace among all nations. War has iis In the views I have now expressed I may ba
10
murder wiih which McLeod stands charged, was
neither authorized nor commanded to make war
on the United States by the Government of Eng
land. This act of hostility was authorized alnne
by Colonel McNabb of the Canada militia, and
not by dueen Victoria, or even the supreme pro
vincial Government. It was undertaken suddenly
by a bacd of volunteer marauders, who neither knew
nor cared what was ihe object of the expedition.
On the recent argument of this case before the Su
preme Court of New York, the Attorney General
of that Stale, as appears from ihe Herald, "read
a despatch of Governor Head to Lord Glenelg, the
British Colonial Secretary, from "Head's Narra
tive," p?-ge 37780. The letter was dated 9ih Fe
bruary, 1838. This letter showed the nature of
the aitack, and that it was composed of volunteers,
who embarked in ignorance of the precise object ol
the expeditionCaplain Drew, who led on the
attack, merely obtaining men who "would follow
hiitt to the Dnil." I regret lhat I could not procure
ihis bock. Ii has not yel btru received in ihe Con
gressional Library. No object was avowed or
even intimated by Captain Drsw. Cr.nseious lhat
he was about to embaik in an unlawful and unjus
tifiable expedition, he concealed his purpose from
his followers. Fifty or sixty desperate banditti
agreed to follow him to the Devil; and on that
night they committed arson and murder upon the
soil, and within the sovereign jurisdiction of the
Staie of New York. And yet, in order to save
McLer d from the punishment due to his crimes,
Senators have been compelled to contend that this
lawless afack was an act of public war committed
by Greai Britain again t this country. Unless they
can establish this position, their who* argumen
Einks into nothing.
Now, sir, if there never had been a book written
upon the subject of national law, could such a
principle be maintained for a single moment?
Reason would at once condemn ihe idea, that such a
marauding expedition, suddenly undertaken by an
inferior officer, was public war. No, sir; n< : there
was no war between Great Britain and the United
States; and it follows as a necessary con- qnence
that every man engaged in this murderous attack
upon a vessel lying within the peaceful waters of
the sovereign State of New York, is amenable to
her criminal laws.
On this point, I shall presently show that the authorilies are clear and decided. And here permit
me to observe that the Senator from Massachu
setts did me no more than justice in supposing that
I ha I intentionally omitted to cite Grotius, for the
purpose of proving that individuals engaged in all
public wars, except such as are denominated so
lemn, might be arrested and punished for ttirir acisunder ihe laws of ihe country which they invaded.
Grotious, in more places than oue, has asserted this
principle. Whether there was not more humanity
in this ancient doctrine than in that which prevail:
at present, I shall not attempt to decide. Accord
ing to it, nations were compelled to make a public
and solemn declaration of war, and thus gave
notice to their enemy and all mankind nf the com
mencement of heslilitie.1 ; otherwite such wars were
xtrnally unlawful, and subjects were liable to
punishment for obeying the commands of their
11
ifjosare or his caprice, involve this couniry against their masters and exciting a servile insurv n;h Great Britain. If he can authorize rectionis such an emissary not to be held accoun
a adventurers to make such an incursion table 10 the laws of this State for hi: acts, because
Ctptain Drew has done, he may license the British Government, whore subject he is, may
cuobters, and mat derers, to invade our bo- have authorized the suppression of tlavery in this
iii !ir they have been guil'.y of the great- cruel manner? Although blood and assassination
:. miles, may demand their surrender, and may follow in im footsteps, yet must be, when ar
e asm from punishment, by casting the re- rested and brought before a court of justice to an
;.irjnpoa ha Government.
swer for his crimes, be .surrendered lo his sovereign
Bbfequtnt approbation of the offender's the moment his surrender is demanded?
a: Kt by his sovereign can relieve him from Mr. Rives here explained. He said that such
tent It is ihe existence of ac.uil war, was not the position for mhich he contended. He
4: crime was commiued, and ihat only, had not intended to say more than thai military in
3 coald eonsiitn:e his defence. I, Uerefore, vasions were recognised by national law as reliev
'.; je with the Senator from Massachu- ing the invaders from punishment.
tit principle that if McLeod had been a
Mr. BUCHANAN. Probably I may have mi-taken
: .n public war, the proof of this fact alone the gentleman in supposing ihat thi principle foe
i:iif7e aim from punishment. The subse- which he contended wa, ihat ihe sovereign power
: iier.'ereoce uf his sovereign in h'S behalf under which an individual acted, and not ihe indi
::: Mcesiary. Whilst I admit this, I consider vidual himself, was responsible, no matter whether
ulij eltar, ihat if war did not eiist between he were employed as a military or a civil agent to
fo r.a';.oub, ibis interference coulcl not with- accomplish the designs ot his Government. I cerfiim from the penalty of ihe law; which he laii.iy understood the Senator distinctly to say, that
io'a'ed. Ic is th: lact of the existence of the authority cited by me from Valtel would pre
tad tot ins imemrence of the B'ilish sove- vent the States of ihis Union from punishing any
, OQ vhiefa the decision of McLeod's case nfienee committed within their territories by a fo
reigner, piovidcd his conduct wie afterwards
feperai.
trtry case of a c'ime committed within our sanctioned by the t>fleni!ei's sovereign.
'.7 by a foreigner, except only in actual war,
Mr. RIVES. Such I understood to be the mean
r.cciple applies which 1 cited from Vattel in ing of Vattel. I did not read the pas-age myself.
,'ia^g remarks. The State or na:ion whose Vattel is mistaken io this particular. I defined my.
tire been outraged, alwajs punishes the argument as being applicable to tnilitaiy aggres
!er. If the sovereign of Ihe nation to which sion only.
lotfs should approve or ratify his criminal
Mr. BUCHANAN. Then, sir, it teems that Vat
: be laagnage of Vattel, "it then becomes a tel is wrong in this particular; but I have ihe pleacciiacein against_such sovereign."
But
this
_ -.from bringing
. .
jsure
of knowing
from Virginia
i-c prevent the offended, S.ate
j
. fc ' that
( the
whSenator
h underslands
?0 be
.aLUi.!0_^:tICA^^r.h.er_.W.n.Uw-: ..?,h.1S the opinion of this great author. But Vattel is not
mle between nations at peace. It applies
subject lo the Senaior's criticism. On the
T 5 he case of McLeod; Decause when the fairly
contrary, he is Ihe highest authority for the opinion
t: vai committed with which he is charged, wh;ch we now both entertain. He lays it down
T-ranee, we have been at peace with Eog- that the sovereign aggrieved may punish any such
1 had not supposed that any Senator would offence committed within his territory; and it is no
.rrn ihii rale; because upon its existence de- where intimated ihat hi arm shall be arrested,
-bt sorereijniy and independence of i.z- whenever a foreign sovereign choose* to recognise
li the daeen of England or the King of
rock, in time of peace, can send emissaries the act.
We then agree that if, in time of peace, an ofcountry to excite insurrection; and if.
el in crimes against our laws, the fo- fsnce be committed wiihiu the territory of a nation,
te:5n can rescue them from punishment no authority whatever can screen the offender from,
their conduct, we are then no longer ihe penalty inflicted by its laws. The Senator ad
ndependent within out own leinlo- mits that war, and war alone, can render these so-,
// / Utierstood the Senator from Virginia vereign laws impotent. But even in war a cap
BJTZS] correeily, he contended that, under tured foldier is not to be delivered op on the de
') tjiaority which I had citsd frjtn Vattel, mand of his Government. He is to be held as a
prcperiy understood, the recognition of any prisoner of war; and if McLeod were in that condi
:A! aci of a fjreigrier within our jurisdiction tion, Mr. Fox would have no right, under the law
ivjTereign, would release ihe offender from or nations, to demand his release, though he might
:: pjaiihtneDt in our courts of justice. justly protest against his punishment.
But as neither Colonel McNabb nor Captain DrewH.S ;ecognitioa the prison djors must fly
ltd eren ih: murderer escape. I cannot could authorize any act of hostility against the
'-' i arue Ihis proposition; but I shall pre- United States, no war existed; and an imaginary
ae Senator an example of what might war has been conjured up by gentlemen as a last
'BOOT own country if hU doctrine wete cor resort, to rescue McLeod from danger, and to jus
tify the Secretary of State in yielding to the de
?v<t the Governor of Jamaica should send mand of the British Government. No case, then,
into one of our Si'tilhern State:: for exist*, to justify the demand of McLeod's release;
of iDflaming the pa>sions of the slaves nd the State of New York has a perfect right to
12
punish him for any offence committed within her
jurisdiction.
When I addressed the Senate before, I expressed
an opinion that McLeod was not present at the
capture of the Caroline. On examining the evi
dence, however, which was recently presented to
the Supreme Court of New York, Ifind sufficient
testimony to render it probable that I may have
t>een mistaken. Among olher testimony, a wit
ness deposed that on the morning after the destruc
tion of the Caroline, he had met McLeod at a ta
vern in Chippewa, who then boasted that he had
killed "one damned Yankee" in that expedition,
and, pointing 10 his sword, said "there's his blood."
I hope this was only bis own vain boasting, and
that he was not in realiiy so bad as his vanity
prompted him to pretend to be. On the question of
his guilt or innocence, I now desiie to express no
cpinion.
The Senator from Massachusetts is mistaken in
his application of the established principle of the
law of nations regarding volunteers to the case ot
McLeod. It is certain that volunteers who enter
the military service of another country for the pur
pose of acquiring skill in ihe art of war, are, when
taken by the ..-nemy, to be treated as if they belong
ed to the army in which they fight. This is the
principle laid down by Valtcl. Such a volunteer
is entitled to all ihe rights and privileges which
war confer?, to the ame extent as though he were
a citizen or subject ot the nation whose forces he
has joined. But is this ihe case of McLeod? In
order to make it such, the Senator must first prove
that war existed bet ween this country and England,
and that, being ihe citizen of another country, that
individual voluntarily joined the British army.
The Senator from Massachusetts has put a case
calculated to sflect our feelings. How hard would
it be, says hr, lor a man to be aroused from his bed
at midnight, to be torn from the arms of his wife
and young child, and commanded, upon bis alle
giance, to join an invading force; and then, after
having acted under this compulsion, to be subjected
to punishment if made a prisoner of war ! But
this, all must perceive, is a mere fancy sketch, and
has no application to the ca?e of McLeod. His
was a voluntary offencethere was no command
no compulsion. He was a volunteer, and was
instigated by his own evil impulses alone to jcin
the expedition, and comra it the crime of murder,
for which, according to the law of nations, if he
should be found guilty, be has forfeited his life to
the offended laws of New York.
The object of all human punishment is to pre
vent crime; and it is ceiuin that such lawless at
tacks on the sovereignty of an Independent nation
will be most effectually prevented, it the persons
engaged in them know that they will certainly be
punished under the_laws of the nation which they
have attacked. This is the clear principle of pub
lic law. When you arrest any such assailant,
who has voluntarily invaded your territory, and wil
fully taken the life of one of your citizens, mercy
teaches you that yon oupht to hang him for mur
der, as an example to all others who might be wil
ling to offend in the same manner. If this were
your known determination, we should never more
suffer from such lawless expeditions as that of
fajaore, he justifies this invasion of our terit by aUading to the examplt of Gineral Jack^firing the Florida war. But is there any
ii*l Between th< two cases?
fke Spanish authorities in Florida honestly con
ed laat .bey had not sufficient power to restrain
i Iiian= irom crossing our frontier and cornSag depredations on our territory; and it was
Kid after this humiliating confession had been
if, laas General Jackson pursued these Indians
! cm fine into the Spanish territory. This
> Kl dae until we could say to the Governor
fcnia- Von acknowledge that you cannot comw.Ji tae stipolations of the treaty between us,
eirjtfeach party to restrain the Indians within
i own Units, by force, from committing bosti aeainst the other party, and, therefore, the
tecisi law of self preservation justifies us in
taming that duty for you. Besides, the terrirf the Setainoles was wild and unsettled, ami
itei Boainally under the jurisdiction of Spain.
b< yet the British Minister compare; the Gosat cf the United States and the State of
York to the Colonial Spanish Government,
* was too feeble even to protect itself, and
tia the capture and burning of the Caroline
I Border of Darfee by (he example of General
14
Sir, it was w who had canse to threatenit
was we who ought to have demanded from the
British Government the surrender of IBS captors
of the Caroline and the murderers of American
citizens on that fatal expedition, that they might be
tried and puniihed under the laws which tl.ey had
violated. We owed it to ourselves and to our
character before the world to make this demand
the very moment when the British Government
rfirst justified the onlrage 10 Mr. Webster. Bat in
stead of in: , when one of there miserable bandiis
was arrested within our territory upoa his own
boastful acknowledgment that he was guilty, the
British Government at once interpose to save him
from trial and from punishment; and they, instead of
us, become the actors. The British minister, in
effect, tells Mr. Webster, "we cannot rtgard the
Tights of your ^vereign and independent States; it
is the Government of ibe United Stales which we
Jiold responsible; we therefore demand of you the
release of McLeod from the custody cf the Slate of
New York, ami wcenireal you deliberately to con
sider the serious consequences which must follow
from yourretu?al."
Mortal man, in civil life, never had a more g!oTious opportunity of distinguishing himself than
was presented to the American Secretary of Slate
on this occasion. Had he then acted as became
the great nation whose representative he was, he
would have won ihe gratitude of his country and
enrolled his name among our most illustrious
statesmen. The opinion of mankind would have
justified a high one on his part towards the British
Government; and I verily believe that such a tone
would have been the most effectual mode of pre
serving peace between Ihe two nations. We had
drunk th cup of forbearance to its last dregs, and
we ought then to have du-p'ayed a little of tbat pa
triotic indignation which the conduct of the British
Government wa so well calculated to excite. A
small portion of the spirit of the elder William Pin
would have impelled the Secretary to pursue the
proper and polnic course tor his country as well as
for his own fame.
The British Government ought to have been
told that we could never yield to a threat. They
ought to have been told by the American Secreta
ry, "yon must first withdraw this threat before we
eandoeventl.at which we belive lobe justice." This
is the conduct whirh honorable men pursue to
wards each oiher, and it is the conduct required
from a gr-at nation by the public opinion of the
jrorld.
Although this is the tone which the Secretary
ought to have a^umedj yet I might have forgiven
him even if he had taken as higb ground as was
occupied by his own political friends in the Legis
lature of New York, before they knew of the ex
istence of the threat. The position which they
assume, in thir address to the people, is "that the
subject of Methods' gnilt or innocence is one ex
clusively belonging 10 the court and jury of the
State; that, like all "ther persons accused of crime,
be must have a fair nial, enjoy a legal deliverance,
if innocent, and >uffer the punishment of his
crimes if guilty; an I 'hat neither the British Go
vernment, nor '.he Government of the United
States, nor the Government of this Siate, ooghj to
15
t< The Secretary of State is a great lawyer,
Mr. BCCHANIN. Yes, sir, General Jackson, in
di 33 researches he may possibly have dis- a public message 10 Congress did use very strong
Eifjch a law; bat yet I venture to assert that language in regard to Franc?, as he had a right to
t :'niko of the Supreme Court of New York, do. He did assume a very lofty tone, and thus, I
feKiibror against McLeod, will be final. I believe, prevented war. But mark the difference.
hi^adto learn the opinion of the Senator This was in a message to a co-ordinate branch of
jiCm!CUcnt [Mr. HBNTIKGTOH] on this M,I - onr own Government; and was not addressed in
HTX ts a profoand and able jurist.
the form of a diplomatic note to the French Go
Jv aeai'.er from Soath Carolina [Mr. PRES vernment.
I '.i- taken me to task for stating that, under I have not mistaken the language of the Senator
rt'tsmsUDCei of the case, the Secretary of from Virginia. The words were: "I hav held
Ik >a not to have expressed the opinion, in an- language like this (of Mr. Fox) to a proud and
fc-jiMr. Fox, that McLeod was entitled to his haughty nation."
CMS under the law of nations. He asks, why Another precedent cited by the Snator was the
ccli-he Secretary have concealed his opinion, language addressed by this same Mr. Fox to Mr.
tsreed with Mr. Fox in his view of the sub- Forsyth; but he has forgotten to state whit was
li
Mr. Forsyth's answer. Mr. Forsyth at least gave
5u*, ar, whi'.st I admit that onr diplomacy him a Rowland fur his Oliver, and did not pass it
i: ??sr 10 tee, a* it ever has been, frank, open, by, as Mr. Webster has done, without any notice.
ioitd; jet I should not have responded to This is one great difference between the two cases.
r Fi i. uut McLsod onght to be discharged n ri Bat there is still another. The expression used by
nse ,i.x of nations, for two reasons, either of Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth is not near so strong as
thit which he used to Mr. Webster; and in his note
fca 1 dennunpV? sufficient.
li the first place, this very question was then, to Mr. Foisyih he expressfy declared that he was
i -'i.'i if, pending* before a 'judicial tribunal in not authorized 10 pronounce the dec-sinn of his
i> York, having exelaMve jurisdiction over the Government cpon our remonstrance in the case of
Her. Under such circumstances, a prudent man tb Caroline. The British Government had not
li : hate awaited the decision. Ifthe court should hen decided, as they have done nuw, to turn a deaf
kt a opmioB from the Secretary, as I think they ear to onr complaint. Mr. Forsyth replied
p^be, a well as the President, will be placed that no discussion of the question here could be
i Bot awkward dilemma, in regard to onr rela- useful, as the negotiation had been transferred to
tt i!i the British Government. If the court London; whilst he informed him that the opinion,
ii msat npoa hanging McLeod, whilst the Se.- so strongly expressed by him, [in ihe case of the
la.'j iias already decided that he ought to go aroline,] "would hardly have been hazarded had
e been possessed of the carefully collected testi
t, u position will be trnly embarrassing.
k :ae second placeI, at least, would never mony which had been piesented to his Govern
tt caressed such an opinion to Mr. Fox, in the ment in support of our demand" for reparation.
Mf a positive threat. It would have been VIr. Forsyth's conduct, whether in public or pri
pwa, ii aK conscience, for the Secretary lo have vate life, will afford but a bad precedent to sustain
jt -Justice will be done to McL:od. If not the doctrine of submission.
17, ke w.ii be acqoiued; and on his trial he will The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTOH]
K:B? fall benefit of that principle of the law of has informed us that he had many precedents to
ks; 7bicb you assert. If guilty of a crime ustify the language of Mr. Fox; but he took care
to cite one of them. He considers il question
IB i3e laws of New York, the Government of
\ Cuied States cannot interfere, because that able whether the language of Mr. Fox amounted to
teis scvereign, and ha; an uncontrollable right a threat or not, but triumphantly exclaims that if
ttaioater her own criminal justice, according Fox did threaten, "Webster defies back again."
Defies back again ! Is this the coune which a
ter two pleasure."
fca: we hoald submit to the insolent threats of proud Government ought to pursue? Defies back
kr ii'icni, because other nations have thus sub- again ! Can insulting language be avenged in thisMi b aot a rale which any American citizen manner?
'.in noigni.*e. Unhappy, indeed, must be the
But when did Mr. Webster defy back again?
: Senators, when they are driven to cite Not until his letter of the 24ih April, which was
nnt
written until six: weeks after the threat. The
ts for the purpose of sustaining the
, and justifying England. The honora- whole question had then been settled, so far as the
from Virginia [Mr. RIVES] informs ns British Government was concerned, forty days bek else If had used similar language in a tore. It had all been adjusted to their entire satis
ric note. I doubt not that he did; I have faction when this "defiance back again" was uteeuon of ii, although I once considered it tered; and this defiance might have betn mudvlueh I owed to him to examine carefully louder and stronger than it was, wiihont disturbing;
i* rcrre*pondcnce with the French Govern- their equanimity.
We had demanded reparation for the outrage on,
Bi! even if the Senator has used language
tfat of Mr. Fox to a proud and haughty the Caroline. The Bri ish Government had de
i Lie France, is that any reason why we layed for three long year* even to give any answer
to language in i insulting from any to our demand. But when McLecd was arrested,
that Government, through their minister, avowand
11 the face of the'earth ?
explained, bat the Reporter did not justify this outragedemand his release, and
threaten ns with the consequences in cas; we should.
3 ex
16
refuse. Our Secretary at once yields, admits that
we hare no right to try and punish McLeod, and
sends the Attorney General to New York to obtain
his release.
Now, Mr, if the Secretary had responded to the
high lone of patriotic feeling which ptrvades this
country, he never would have met the demand and
the threat of the British minister in this manner.
He should have said, "The American Government
demanded reparation from you three years ago for
the capture of the Caroline. I now reiterate that
demand, and I estreat the British Government 'to
take into its most deliberate consideration the se
rious nature of the consequences which must en
sue1 from their refusal." Instead cf this, what does
the American Secretary do? He treats the affair
of the Caroline as though it were still a pending
question, and had not been decided by the British
Government, satisfies the British minister in regard
to MtLeod, and takes forty days to write a chap
ter for effect to satisfy the people of this country.
But no where through this long esay does he even
allude to the threat, though he had yielded to it.
This letter, of ihe 24th April, will probably never
ewn be noticed by the British ministry, unless we
should now make a new and positive demand for
reparation. The Secretary may write, and write,
and write again, as many long and able arguments
as he pleases; it this be all, they will not move the
Britiih Government. The difference between u
if, that they act, whilst we discuss; and as long as
we do what they please, they will suffer us to write
what we please.
But how has the Secretary "defied back again?'"
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON]
has read some of this language of defiance from
the letter of the 24th April. "All will see," says
the Secretary, "that if such things are allowed to
occur, they must lead to bloody and eiispeia ed
war.'' When, sir, do you suppose this bloody
war of the Secretary will commenci? Will it be
on the mxtjourtk of Jvly, or some fourth nfjuly, or
any fourtknf July in atlfutwe tint? Again: "This
Republic is jealous of iis rights, and among others,
and most especially, of the right of the absolute
immunity of its territory against aggression from
abroad; and these rights it is the duty and determi
nation of this Government fully, and at all times,
to maintain, whilst it will at the same time as scru
pulously refrain from infringing on the rights of
others." This, then, is the defiance back again of
which the Senator from South Carolina vaunts.
Let me tell that Senator that it is not these vague
and unmeaning generalities, however beautifully
expressed, which will produce any effect upon the
British Government. It is the demandthe posi
tive demand of atonement for the Caroline outrage,
and the expression of a stern and unalterable pur
pose to obtain it at any hazard, which can alone
induce them to reconsider their determination and
yield to justice.
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Rives] asks me
whether I suppose that the man whose death w
are all now deploring, and in memory of whom this
chamber is- now hong in black, would have submitted
to an insulting threat from the British Government? I
most certainly think not. However ranch I may
have differed in political opinion from the late