IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ,5.*% 1.0 I.I 11.25 1^ V2.8 |50 *'^" Hi ■ 40 2.2 M 1.8 U II 1.6 P a /; /i 7. :>:> >^ 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \ iV s? :\ \ lV 6^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: Thei to th L'inrtitut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sort indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D y □ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Thei poss of th filmi Origi begii theli sion, othe first sion, or ill Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqudes □Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es HShowthrough/ Transparence Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible [~~| Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Thei shall TINl whic Mapi diffe entir begii right requi meth Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 film^es d nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X j/_ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Nationai Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce A la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibiiothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetd de rexemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'imprassion ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimds en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fiimds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. lies diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. ; : 1 , : 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MB f' 'I a^itit^f^i^n^jftmi'f-'ifmcssff"-' — ^'^i.^MffimamHr'f^ vlp>w^-;^i^6JBwiBP^^ft»«''»i^-^' ' '■ ' *' ' ^ iM « *« tfawMJ:ggiiH-'->ii'» TBS CASK Of AI,EX&i\OEn fflcLEOB. l-i i nsiiVEnED jx »l THE nouSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 24 and 25, 1841. Uifl ' '*i-t^H-t ■Nf- WASHINGTON: »HI5T1!D AT THE NATIOITAI, I KTILLIOKirCKIl OFF.cii. 1841. W' V Thefc "Itesoh iiicompatih of the Uni Vork for a ther, by an understand House copi Mr. CL Mr. Spi between o ject ofpul our Gover God forbic tion of nat foreign reli verv esseni Vol VPS an i is our duty back on tl allude to ih public inter day ii! this gentleman f Wbat is purposes, ai does, tliHi pi manner doe In a donu questions an concussion I of the State everdiscusse those judges a moment, th istration of « Look, in I domestic onl3 tied? Is it n said in this H tieman from I result from tl are to be ind thus end in sli withstanding \ not on a sudc complaint aga And I couli principles of ji He lias not de itic and unwisi \ *f SPEECH The folluwing resolution, ofleied by Mr. Floyd, being under consideration : •« Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to inform this House, if not incompatible with the public interest, V/hciher any officer of the Army, or the Attorney General of the United States, has, since the 4th of March last, been directed to visit the State of New York for any purpose connected with the imprisonment or trial of Alexander McLeod, and whe- ther, by any Executive measures or correspondence, the Britiiih Government has been given to understand that Mr. Mda'dd will be released or surrendered, and, if so, to communicate to this House copies of the instructions to, and report of, such oHioer :" — Mr. CUSHING aiidrf.'ss.'d die House as follows: Mr. Speaker : It is customary to make public, from time to time, the negotiations between our «)vvn and other Governments; and those negotiations become the sub- ject of public debate in the two Houses of Consress. This publicity of all the acts of our Government is one anioni; its fundamenlai prinriples and its greatest blessings. God forbid that 1 shoidd, on this or on any other occasion, seek to prevent examina- tion of national measures, whether they relate to the domestic atVairs or to the foreign relations of the country. But while this feature of our institutions is of their very essence, while it is indispensable to our national liberties, it of necessity in- volves an inconvenience ; and I state it as an inconvenience merely, and which it is our duty frankly to accept, and to accommodate ourselves to, as but a slight draw- back on the blessings of civil liberty which characterize the United States. I! allude to the impolitic introduction into the debate of nuitters which, consulting the public interest only, it would have been better to omit ; such as we have seen to- day in this House, and of which improper course of proceeding the speech of (he gentleman tVom Pennsylvaida (Mr. Ingkp.soll) afTords an illustration. What is the attitude which that trentleman assumes 1 Whilst disclaiming party purposes, and claiming, as he does, to love peace for itself, and professing, as he does, that peace is for the best interests of otir country, at what time and in what manner does he raise this discussion before the House] In a domestic point of view, look, in the first place, at the fact that these grave questions are liirown into the arena of this House, to be made the foot-ball of party concussion here, when, at this moment, they are under the advisement of the courts of the Slate of New York. Yes! these the gravest judicial questions, perhaps, ever discussed or adjudged in t!iis country, are now being weighed in the breasts of those judges who are shortly to give their decision in the premises; and yet, at such a moment, they are to be debated here, as a matter of fault-finding with the admin- istration of our Government. Look, in the second place, at the immense importance of the subject, not in its domestic only, but also in its foreign relations. Is this a question of diplomacy set- tled? Is it not a pending question 1 And is there not a probability that what is said in this House may disturb and obstruct the proper settlement of it 1 The gen- tleman from Pennsylvania avows and admits that a pro :ted and bloody war may result from the present state of things; and that, if crimination and recrimination are to be indulged in, it would have the effect of inflaming the popular mind, and thus end in shedding the blood of the kindred nations of Britain and America. Not- withstanding which view of things, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has delivered, not on a sudden impulse, but by premeditation and study, an elaborate speech of complaint against the for?ign policy of the Government. And I could not but marvel to perceive that he is not content to question the principles of law, international or municipal, as received by the Secretary of State. He has not deemed it enough to argue that the course of the Government is impol- itic and unwise. He is not satisfied with questioning, by insinuation at least, the H- 5 I I l\ patriotism of ilif Secit'diiy <»r Si;ii»' iikI (il;u:iii;( William Ht'mv Harrison md Jolin TvN'i oil dill' si.h', ml Dtiii.l \\ I'li-lrr mi tin- oiIh r, in iliis inainr. [Jut Ik; coniloscciids to criiicisi', in the stvlcnfii litriiuy i"«'vi*>u, ihi; hiiM'iiaiM' ol' tlu' fcfc rr*- tarv's despalclj. And what is iho faidl rnnifi with that lanajuauf ? Why, fotsooll., it is to hr condiMunpd bL'cau>!P ol its ;dhMM'd floqiicncr. That is to say, tin* vry matclili ss Dower ot' lantunuf hmiicht to liir dcrrnco ot' tlio United Sialt*;, hv tlic Secretary, is )i''rvriiiil)i»'cl ot" ifproacl.. I pit! it to the caiidor ot" ilip wiMiMrnnii from Pennsylvania to say wlifllwr iIi.n kind o(" criticism bo not disii)0(>iiii()ii>. I am awari' that {\wrv is an established Ian giiage of diploinary — ditjuififd, t\acf, Cotnitl, sonuuhat gout ral and reserved in its style, and alion to rhetorical ornanie»il. If", in speakin;; nt' iho lieauty ol" lair guage of this despatch, of its irop»'» and tiqnrt'S, the ^'enili'niin means to say tiiere is any thinji nndiplomatic, any tiling of nnmaidy or eflVminate tieoanrp, I totally deny the jostice of his (ii(ici>ini. Noihiiifr in that letter can « xreeo the precision and strenalh td' tiie |r«nyiiai_'e, drawn from the purest wells ofundetilcd Enijlish,— nothing can exceed the manly viijor of its tone and diction, except the b<»aiity ot" tItoDght and patriotisnj of principle which kindle in evurv sentence. How coidd the gentleman from Pennsylvania shut his eyes to this? How could he deaden him«',!l to all perception of the si)irit (d patri(»lism which runs ihronuli every line of that despatch? How, stopping .o complain oftho excellence of the ianpnase, could he keep himself insensible to the nolilenrss o\ the thouuhi of ihose passa^jes of the de»!patch which, though censored by him, havo been received with the mest enihu- siastic applause by almost the universal People of the United States { Whatever might be said of the precise, narrow, naked quesiien, whether tiie instruc tions to Mr. Crittenden should or should not have been writtf n ; whatever miuhl l;e said of the equally narrow questions of imernational law involved in the demand for the release of McLeod, the last thing I dre.imed to iiear in the Congress of the United States was this elaboration of minute criticism on the language of that despatch, and of such criticism redeenu^d by no rocoi^niiion of the palriotisn) of principle which di»tinguishes it. Is not tills unjustifiable as well as extraordinary i But I have dwelt longer than I had intended on this point ; and I would not l.ave touched it at all, bui for the indication it aftords of the spirit of laull-findiug whicli characterizes the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is easy to finrl fault with a jiublic despatch — to take it, paragraph by para- graph, and say this or that idea might have been expressed otherwise; thatiMi. Madison or Mr. Monroe, on a similar occasion, might liave used difl'erent lanL'tiagp. It is easy for an acute, ingenious, practised lawyc.-r to find fault with the lauguaue, the law, and the diplomacy of the despatch ; but it is nov«d to cwniplain of one be- cause of the [ire-eminent merit of its composition. There is another remarkable thing which appears on the very surface (d" the speech of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The point from which he starts, and at which he closes, the idea which he again and again presents to the mind is, that in tliis desiiatcli are contained the seeds of war between the U'nited Slates and Great Britain. Now I, for one, deprecate a war between the United States and any Government, and most of all between the United States and England ; but in deprecating this I declare, as I have again and again done before, that 1 would cavil with FJ,ngland to the thousandth division of a hair, on any question of the rights or honor of the United States. And 1 w^uld do so not oidy because she is our com- petitor on the seas, not only because she has colonies conterminous with our country, but for the very cause that she is great, strong, and powerful, and the worthier to be the antagonist of the United States; and for these reasons I would meet her with the spirit, and zeal, and feelings which become the descendants of the men of the Revolution. When 1 look around me to inquire from what quarter these remarks come, calling in question the patriotism and spirit of the fereign policy of the present Ad- ministration, 1 am astonished to see that ihey proceed from a friend uf the last Ad- laiojsiiatioti and opponent of the present. I II I Ol I [Mr. part of Ml. ( ol'e\ei V friend o imputes he laiini •inlike ( previous 'he f'rieii not) the Was t Did It , for repai conirar\ Mr. A'i.n dental qii Englamf ease of i x\ay, to me lo macy. Stale, Ity of others, under Ge ing the fir famous. And is it compel us trove r.sy bi vindication Mr. Van J Great Brit American i liistoiy of t did not Mr t'lte, in tha 'he Uniifid disastrous I Stall's ? A it infinitely tlie United •ninisiraiioii interests — ii world with ; United Sfati name of Air war, as we I not reach, w the last time Nor WH« t which, undei Administrati my colleaguf ducted the fc fice our inter hands. But *"^ para- ;U .Ml. in; I race. Olio be- ot ill!' lis, ami is, lliat tcs and tes and but in "Id cavil l^lits or [r com- lountry, lliier 10 ;v\ lier hnen of come, Int Ad- 1st Ad- [Mr. Inueksum. was \\vrr iindci^iiood to iiiliiii-iU xmii' liissfiii ri()in llit- iatler part ul llx: proposition.] .Mr. Cu8iiiNu conliniifd. Weil, ilit^ pietient Administration de^nvt-s liit' support oleMMV^otHi man in tlit; coiintiy. Diil, at any r'lte, tlie loinarks uunif fioni u fritMid of the l.ist Adiiiini^trniinn. Yes ! it is a friend of the last Adminisiration wlio iinputcii to till' [)resL'iil a want of duo Npiiit towards Groat Britain, and cavils at what he tauiiiiii^ly calls tlit; coup (Vessai of" a new fbreijin Secretary ( iitering into office, iinliko (f b(dievt; llie uenllciiiau sani) all his prcdccissiiis, without the advantage ot previous irainiiii; in diplomacy. Ami u|)on lliest.- pcjinls I have something to say to ilie friends of tlie hist Adniiiii^tration, and (whethi'i' lliu two things he identical or iiol) the members of the [uesent Opfioiition. Was the last Administration disiiiij^ui ^hed lor its zeal in this particular tliinj.' 1 Did it prosfciilr with spirit the claim ol lli(? United iStaies a-^ainst (ireal Britain for reparation uii acioimi 4it" ihi; de.^iruclion of" the Caroline? Did it not, on the contrary, allow that claim .t(» slumber lor three years? And, for aught that appears, Mr. ^ an Buren would liaxc allow eii it (o slumlter to thr t iid of tinte, if the inci- dental tpiesticin iiivol\(d in MiLeod'-s aiitsi |pid iiut arisen, and, by converting Englanil into the claimanl paiiy, thus compelled him to re^umc the discussion of the case of ilic Caroline. •Nay, more, the L'eiiih man I'lom I'l iiti^v Ivaiii.i has enleriuiiipd us with what seems to me lo be very Ci«piious co iHHfnt> on this caujj d^essal of Mr. Webster in diplo- macy. He is (]uiti' misiaki II in sayiiij: that Mi. Webiter is the first .Secretary of Stale, by mai)\, who had had m. previous diplomatic oxpi^rieiice. To say nothing of others, what diplomatic training; was poss«vsM'd by the Jirst Sccrefari/ of Stale under GentMal Jackson ? And when the jnentleman from Pennsylvania is consider- ing the first great negotiation of Mr. Webster, how does lie ha|pen lo forget the famous, or rallter iiif"amous, first great iMgoiiatit»n undertaken by JMr. Van Buren T And is it 11 )t an act of mere madness, on the part of" the f"i lends of Mr. Van Buren, to compel us to compare the two? Here is h despatch belbte us addiessed in a con- troversy between the United Slates and Great Britain, containing one of th«) ablest vindications of the honor and integrity of the United Stales that ever was written. Mr. Van Buren began, also, with the discussion of a question between us and Great Britain. And in what s[)irit 1 — that of u patiiot, a man of honor, and an American? Is not that despatch, on the contrary, a monument of ignominy in the history of the United Slates? Instead of maintaining the interests of this country, did not Mr. Van Buren, on that o(cii>ioii, utterly sacrifice them? Did lie not dic- tate, in that despatch, a dispusiiion of the great question of the colony trade between the United Stales and (ireat Britain, which, from that time to tliis, has proved most disastrous in its effects on ihe commercial and navigating interests of the United State's ? A.id pernicious as was the object of the despatch, was not (he spirit of it infinitely worse? In which, lor the first time, [larty quarrels of the People of the United States were carried into our foreign afl'airs — in which a preceding Ad- minisiralion was impliedly reproached for ilie zeal with which it had defended our interests — in which it was pioclainied that the new Administration started in the world with a srt purpose of concession towards Britain — in which the honor of the United Slates was laid prostrate at the foot of the British throne, and Hie proud name of America, to sustain which our fathers had carried on a first and a second war, as wu nmy have to do a third — that glory which the arms of our enemy could not reach, was, in this trucklinii despatch, laid low for the first, and, I trust in God, the last time, before the lion of England. Nor was tnat despatch a solitary act — .1 was the true inde.\ of the purposes which, under the inspiration of Mr. Van Buren, characterized the policy of the last Administration toward Great Britain. For a long series of years, prior to 1829, my colleague, (Mr. Adams,) either as Secretary of State or as President, had con- ducted the foreign negotiations of this Government. He was not the man to sacri- fice our interests. No right of the United States was ever impaired or lost in his hands. But the moment he was driven from power, a change came over the foreign fiolicv of die coiinlrv- Tlial clitiiii of llu; I mu;d Siatri lo coiiiiiicroiai n'ciprocit) \s\[\t Kiiizlant) and Ik'I roloiiit's, wiiio.li lie liuJ xIi.huoiinIv maintaiiu'd, wa.s abaii- (li»iK'(J ai oiicf. Tlio litlo of the United rSlau-s lo tin; possession of the vast region watered by the river Coliiinbi.i, which Ik; liad defeiid-'d, was h'fl to its fate, and for the twelve year> that en>i>ed under the last Adniinis.iation not a dopatth or a word was addressed to Lnyland on the siibjeii. Mi. Adams had been pursuing the ri^hti of the United Slates, also, on the lonu; line ot disputed boundary, from the Neehish rapids, at the loot of Lake Superior, noith and west to tin; Rocky mountains. But that question, also, Mr. Van Bureii and his party allowed to go to sleep for t«'n years, until they wi-re driven to take it up by a resolution which I ofl'erejl in this House. And then, worst of all, the scries of blunders and concessions made during the last twelve years in the question of the North«-'aslein boundary — it havint; taken one-half of that time to raise up the question, by discussion in Congress and other- wiaP, from the point of depression lo which it had been sunk durinii tlie oilier half of it by the im[)olicy and improvidence of the then Administration ; which liad too much to do of petty party warfare to jjivo due attention to hij^her and morr' national inte- rests. And I mii;ht refer to other great i|uestions which mark, in the same way, the spirit n{ concession towaids Ln^lund in all ihiKjis, which pervaded the foreign policy of the last Admini'lration : the friends «»f which come, at length, to he seized with a spasin ot patiioiism in llii- matter just when tliey beirin to be an Opposition. And now let me r.ddress a siiit;L' consideiation lu the members of the Opposition, whether friends or not of the last Administration, in reference to the parly tactics they seem disposed to pursue on the questions pending between the United Stales and Gn.'al Brilaii-i. It is inqjossible not to ohsei vc ilie course this thing is about lo take. Whether we read ihe newspapers of tie; Opposition or observe the discus- sions in Congress, it is alike apparent that they aie undertaking to stimulate a war feeling in tlie United States in the li.»pe of thus iiiiuriiig the prest;nt Administration, I an» aware that llieri' exists thriiui^iiout the I'nited Stales at the preseia time a vivid jealousy of the all-encroachiiiir, the rapacious, and the meifeiiary spiril of ll;e foreign policy of Euul.md. 1 am not unconscious that the idea is daily gaining ground of an approacliing necessity on the part of the United Slates to withstand the aggressive conduct ol England ai the hazard of the not improbable event of ulti- mate war ; and 1 do not regret that the Peo|)le of the United States are thus vigi- lant in relation to ili«» acts of the only European Power in contact with the United Slates. But I do most deeply regret to see that party spirit is seeking to possess itself, for sinister purposes, of the patriotic feeliiin policy of the Administration undertaken by the Opposition in both Houses of Congress. I shall avoid to-day, as 1 did yesterday, the points debated in the Senate. It would be idle for me to reargue the particular things which have been discussed there so fully, ably, and triumphantly by eminent Senators. To do so would be " To gild refnied gold, to paint the lily, Or add a perfume to the violet." Nor do I stand here now to make apologies for the foreign D>. partment of the American Governtnent, or merely to defend the acts of the Secretary of State. My purpose, on the contrary, is to attack the course of the Opposition in this matter, and to show that, if not the object, yet the tendency and end of their course is to substitute for the true issue between the United States and Great Britain a false one ; to play into the hands of England ; to force the Government of the United States, if they may, to abandon the impregnable fortress of right, and to drive the country to tiie edi»e of a precipice, over which, if the nation should fall, it would, like the rebel anuels in Milton, be hurled down, as it were, from the heaven of its present lofty position into the bottomless abyss of error and disaster. This, I say, is the tendency and inevitable result of the arguments of the Opposition, as I will undertake to demonstrate. The qiu'stion involved in the case of McLeod is a secondary and incidental one- incidental to the main question of the attack on the Caroline. To appreciate the true position of the United States in the whole matter, therefore, it is necessary to go back to the original fact. What was that fact ? Insurrection and civil war existed in the British Province of Upper Canada, conterminous with the territory of the United States. That in- surrection had its root in caus(>s vviiich appealed irresistibly to the sympathies of tho People of the United States, to their revolutionary recollections, and to their innate love of liberty. It was a question of colonial independence, of republican feeling, of love for liberty, and of the right of self-government. It was impossible for the People of the United States not to sympathize with the insurgent party in such a case. To do so was no fault of theirs, but, on the contrary, a merit. If any dis- orders occurred on our side of the line, for those disorders Great Britain, not the United States, was responsible. Great Britain was responsible for all the unavoid- able consequences of her own misgovernment of her own Colony, fur the agitation .^H & which that iniitgovcrninent gavo rise to on our side of the line as well as hers ; for it WHS the ordinary case of two nt»i<,'hborH (u-ciiijying purls of tli<« sHmc house, in which, if one of the co-tenst; l!iey do not found their foreign policy upon sordid considerations ; they do not undertake basely to prevari- cate in international questions, by pretending lo be neutral as a t )vernmpnt, v\ hile their people are let loose as individuals, to organize war against a foreign Power. They adopt, at the spirit of their foreign policy, tho same principle whidi animates their domosiic institutions, viz : the assertion and maintenance of moral right, as the only true guido for the conduct of nations as well as men. For the saln- guard of their own honor as a nation, for ihe love of fhn eternal principles of right, the United States have, by a lonu sysieni of legislation, estalilished a public policy of neutrality, national and individual, in tli(;ir loreiirn relations. In this we have set tho example to llie world — an example which England herself, in her own le- gislation on the subject, has been emujjus, in profession at least, to follow. And when the troubles In (.Canada broke out, the Federal Government interposed in good faith lo check, and, so far as |)ossible, prevent, all interference therein on the part of the people of the United Stales. Great Britain, on the other hand, at near- ly the same |)eriod of lime, exhibited the sj)cclaclc of allowing whole regiments of her subjects to enlist, arn», and equip themselves, in her own ports, for the purposf; of engaging as mercenaries in the civil wars of Spain and Portugal. Nay, a mem- ber of Parliament look the command of a British legion engaged in the civil war in Spain, attended in his place in the House of Commons in the intervals of his cam- paigns, and has been knighted by the English Government in recompense of his services in thai war. A mullilude of other conspicuous examples miylil be cited ; in confirmation of which is the fact that when, in the year 1819, the English Govern- ment procured the passage of an act to prevent enlistments in the service of the Span- ish colonies against Spain, that act was opposed by many of t!ie most eminent men in England, and in part by ihe same men now in power there, as being a deftariure from the ancient and long continued policy of England, which, without any admit- ted breach of its neutrality, had furnished supplies, munitions of war, and men, for one party or the other, in half the civil wars of Europe. I repeat, therefore, that, in the general matter of iho troubles in Canada, ilie conduct of the United Slates was altogether above reproach, at least so fer as it re- garded Great Britain. And it was under these circumstances, and notwithstanding the high-minded, neutral policy of the United Slates, that the attack on the Caro- line took place. And, therefore, unless there was something in the particular cir- cumstances of the case of the Caroline to take it out of the general principles of national right, that attack was wholly unjustifiable, and confers on the United States an indisputable claim on Great Britain for redress. Was there any thing Id those circumstances to constitute such an exception 7 Ther put, siiy. Cam ;rs ; for jii&e, ill Jiri'icjiu- iil.imiiy. losed to joverii ilrain its stroDg- |).irl of riiHin. n Great U'S, \WT lis only, s, or she f pari of t li«'r«nlf ill iriirr- ate, made that claim on the ground thai what had been done, if avowed or assumed by the British Government, consiituted an act of war, as I shall show liereafier by the [iroduction of tin? despatch on that subject, addressed by Mr. Stevenson to Lord I'almer.Ioii. And 1 assume, as the premises fall that 1 shall have to say concerning llic case of McLeod, that, in tho precise matter of the Caroline, tin; United Stairs possess such a clear and manifest ri^bt of redress against (ireai Britain, for lii)>iile invasion of the lerntoiy o( the United States, that, it the controversy should tiid in war, the Uniied Stales may contidenl- ly appeal to the judgmtnt of men amJ of iii'tions, and of liiejust God who overrules all, for our vindication in respect o\' whatever calamity and blootlslied might ensue. Our position in this matter, if we do not stupidly and madly abandon it, U a stron;;, unsbakt able, and i.iipregnabh; one. And il is in this point of view that I object lo the course of the ^enll<>mall from Pennsylvania. I doubt not the English (joveremenl would be very glad, for the great and trui' issue in the case of ihe (Jaroiin«s to substitute the jieity and tlie l;il>e one of McLeod ; tor that issue in which the judgment and sympathies of the wliolo world would be on our side, to raise up a new one, whtio that judgment and those sympathies would of necessity be on the side of England. And I charge upon the gentleman from Pennsylvania — I accuse liim and those who act with him — i ar- raign tlujMi bcfuie tlir (wople of the Uniied States — 1 bold li'eni responsible lo ilie country, for allowing themselve.'s to become the blind instruments of England, against the interest and honor ol the (iovcrnment iind People of tlu; Unii.id States. I hold them to all pifscnt and future rt.'spoiisibiliiy fir whatever mischief may come, if, by the course they ure pursuing, they force the Lnited States from the dignity and ma- jesty of the [)()sit!on we now occupy in this matter, and compel us to relinquish our own triumpliaiit issuf, to ado|)l that which England would fain present to us, for her advantage and our disgrace. But this is not nil. Tiie (piestion of the CaroliiH! is not the only one [lending between England and the Unitisd States. There are many others: in all which, as in that of the (.'aroline, tin; Uniied States ar«' the ..ggri( ved and coin(jlainant party, and on .iiiy of wliicli lix' United States iMgl,*, if oci:asi(.n required, and no other means of redn-ss existed, justifiably enter upot war with Great Biilain. In th'j first pl.ice, we have the old and long-pending questions of boutidary — not merely that of the Norlbeastern boundary, but of two-thirds of the long line of fron- tier, extendin;: from the mouth of Passamaquoddy bay, across tlie continent, to the shores of the Pacilic ocean ; the larger part of which is still wholly unsettled, and upoti the line of vvhich (ireat Britain is cmitinually committing acts of gross aggres- sion on the rights of tlw United States. For all these wrongs the day of judgment and redress must come ; and in these great boundary questions England might well jump at the chance of interposinc the case of McLeod, and complaint against us for wrong in that matter. Britain would willingly interpose this case between us 10 and our ciuinis uii iier, if wc have tlit* folly tu allow Iter to do so. 1 appeal to the members from the State of Maine, I appmil to those from the great ^orthvvest, whether they will softer themselves to be drawn into a position so false as this; and whether they are content to follow in the lead of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in this matter, and to become the instrumenta of Great Britain in the sacrifice of the rights of all the frontier States. In the second place, go to the soa, anel you find that in the vast career of am- bition and conquest in which England is hurrying along to some great but inappre- ciable consunmiation, she is perpetually there, also, rommitiing aggressions on the rights of the United States. Among these, are acts of the gravest and most threat- ening description. I do not allude to here and there a case of blockade operating injuriously upon our commerce. 1 do not speak njerely of the innovation upon the law of nations which England is endeavoring to fciie upon us at the expense of our Southern States, in the reiterated cases of our shipwrecked slaves unlawfully taken from their masters by British officers in the West Indies, new instances of which have occurred within the last year. But I allude more particularly to the long se- ries of insolent acts of search and seizure of our vessels perpetrated by English crui- sers on the coast of Africa. Are gentlemen aware that these acts have already, within two years, been so fearfully multiplied that set representations of st possible reason to give to the gentlemen of the Opposition why they should not accuse Mr. Webster of a want of spirit in omitting to treat this intimation of consequences as a threat precluding respectful answer. For precisely the same idea, in almost the same language, was presented by Mr. Tox to Mr. Forsyth, in his letter of the 29ih of December, when he before de- manded the release of McLeod. The words are these : '• I cannot but foresee the very grave, and serious consei/iiences (hat must ensue if, besides the injury already inflicted upon Mr. McLeod, of a vexatious and unjust imprisonment, any further harm may be done him in the progress of this extraordinary proceeding." And Mr. Webster, like Mr. Forsyth, while returning to this demand a refusal as peremptory as the demand itself, might well reflect that ho best consulted the dig- nity of the American Government by not being over-anxious to cavil about words, Ot over-jealous to find in them matter of oflence. The gentleman from Pennsylvania proceeds to lament that Mr. Webster has, as he conceives, capitulated away the rights of the United States, by admitting and even anticipating Mr. Fox in the declaration that the attack on the Caroline was an act of war. In this complaint the gentleman forgets that Mr. Fox expressly de- I I V2 scribes llie aliack on tlit* Caroline! as an acl ol' public lorrr, and tlicielori! it is untrue that Mr. Webster anticipates him in ibis idea. Then, does Mr. VVebj.tei etr in accediii;: thus to the sugjri'stion of Mr Fox? Ouj^lit he to iiave denied the assunintion ? I I'eply, that lie could not deny it. First, the attack tin the Caroline, as the matter now stood, was, in point ot lati, an act ol war ; and, therelore, to have asserii'd tlie contrary, would have been to assuri a lalseiiood. ^^econdly, there is no lille of claim in virtue of' which the United States can demand reparation ot England I'or the attack, except in treating it as a hostile act of the British Gove^rn- ment. Tiiirdly, Mr. \Veb>ter was precluded, uy the act of his predecessor, Irom taking any other ground. In treating- it as an acl ot' war, he did but continue in the sense of Mr. Van Buren's Administration, and lollow the lii-hts Itetore him in the Oeparlnteiit of Staie. For the L'Hnileman from Pennsylvania and his friends have not only shut their eyes to the merits ol the casi , liu; tiiey have forgotten its histor} . It is strange enough that the friends of Mr. \ at) Hun-n shoidd deny that the at- tack on the Candinc was an act if «ai. I reply to lliem, not oidy by exhibiting the reason and the principle of" the thin despatch addressed by Mr. Stevenson to Lord Palmerston, under the direction of Mr. Van Bnren, makini: demand ol repaiation lor the destruction of the Caroline; and in tli.ii despatch, which has been publislied, Mr. Stevenson |)ursues the only course he could pursue. He pro- ceeds to prove the hostile nature of the acl by a full exhibition of facts, and con- cludes and wi"ds up the whole with declaring in these words : " The case, then, is one of o[)en, undist^uised, and unwarrantable hostilitv." After this, let no man complain of Mr. VVebsler for having put the cu^e of the Caroline on the same pre cise ground which Mr. Van Buren had assumed for it, and which, indeed, is the only ground upon which the United States could undertake to h;)ld the British Go- veromrnt responsible. The yentleman from Pennsylvania would have the House beli»'ve that the Secre- tary ot' State, neglecting the authorities of the English law, goes lor the guide of his o[)inions in the matter to the continental jurists and to countries where power is strong and right feeble. This is one of the numeroui; exainj)les of small criticism, and of complaint by insinuation, in which tiie gentleman has indulged in the course of his speech. But in truth it is he and his friends, instead of Mr. Webster, who go to the jurists ol the Continent in this niitter. Upon what only legal authority do they controvert the positions of Mr. Webster? Is it not a passage in the Conli- nental jurist, Vattel ? Whilst it is the English jurist, Rutlierlorth, who fidly and eiuphalically sustains Mr. Webster. If in ibis question there be any who draw their opinions from the unregenerated principles of the European Continental law, any who drink at these poisoned sources, it is the friends of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The uentleman proceeds to det.y all the legal positioi's of' the Secretary, one by OIM'. Whilst doiuij this, he seems to t'orpet that the Secretary of S'ale is not the law otlicer of the Government. The barbed shafts which he aims at Daniel Web- ster pass innocuous by him ; and if ther*? be any venom on their points, they strike it into the bosom, not of the Secretary ot' Stale, but, Mr. Speaker, of your own brilliant and adniirablo representative in the Cabinet, Jnhn .1. Crittenden, the Attorney General of the United Staffs. In the first place, the gentleman, if I undi;rstand Iiim, denies that, in any event, jurisdiction in the case of McLeod could be transferred from the courts of the State of New York to those of the United States; and also denies that the Governmenl of the United Stales would have the power to cause a no/fe prosequi in ti;e case to be entered here. I was surprised to hear such sugjiestions fall fiom the learned gentleman. I cannot pretend to the long lecal experience of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I have some time since thrown ofl" the robes of the bar; but I had supposed ihat there was one great statute in the books, which lay at the threshold of all legal knowledge in the United States; and that no man in this country out bear sect! Soih cases as to tlic pr fl 00. •• to ment, ac(l out I be LJ present, il cabioef, a| But. in mit tiiat .Slate, as upon liie they see ml gone toi:et| to that G« on the I5i| Fox was I) to -New Y( P'lrt of iIk 1 have 1)0 trary, to m Tile den \\ ebster 01 able fii'liiy 1 so consider history, and came the ii wliicli cove accession of be pretende starices reqi speech in tl new Admin (Mernity. I fully ciuDpoi thai Executi action of ih^ and toils att only by a d the mortal s mind all this ally as there demand of t But whilst wait for a ct progress of Fox's demar State of iNh question of what inllueni It did in the; ously demant of justice in do — but onh 18 It tlio Itrikc |uwn the l^eiit, louse Iroiii It I the Ithis country couhJ c^'m I'daiission inio ilic icinple of Jiistire, ns a niiiiiiter thnrt', with- out bearing that statiiH' ii: his liaiid. 1 it'ler to the judiciary act of 1789, in the 21th snction of which e.\|)rrss provision is made for tlie transfer of precisely such rases as this from th'^ courts of tin- States to those of the United States. And as to the power '.o enter a ftollc prosequi, I appeul lo any and every lawyer on tiiis floor to s:iy whellier t'lis power do.-s not belong; to tiie l.iw officer of the Govern- nienl, according to the esiahlished practice of every tribunal, high or low, tluongh- out liio United ."^lates. This ijie Attorney G'-neral niij^hi do, in such a ca>p as the presf'iu, if he saw fii, not under di( tation ot \\v President, but as a menib«'r of his cabinet, and participaiint; in ids policy. But, in the se'cund plac;', the gentleman and his friends, while they seem to ad- mit that upon the main point in controversy the principles of the Seciotary of .State, as develop»nl in his letter to Mr. Fox, are substantially correct, yet fasten upon liie letter of instrncticms to Mr. Critu-nden as the s;reat cause of comphiint ; they seem to admit that, so iwr as regards Great Britain, if the two letters had gone loiiether, in point ol'dale, tliey would have constiiuted the satisfactory answer to that Government, but that the h tier to Mr. Crittenden, statiding by itself, dated on tiie 15th of Marcli, is a conccs-ion lo Enulaiid in fact, while the letter to Mr. Fox was but a deni.ii of concession in form, and that the visit ol' Mr. Crittenden to -New York was an act of interierence with the tilbunals of that Siate on the P'lrt of tlie Federal Government. 1 state these objections thus distinctly, because 1 have no wish to evade any thins; in this niatter; but am solicitous, on il:e con- trary, to meet everv ihing lace lo iace, openly and directly. TIh' demand of xMr. Fox is dMl^d on the 12ih of March, and the reply of Mr, Wfbster on the 24ih of April. Is there any just reason to treat this as uiijt i tion- ai)le dilay"? Mo gentleman who reflects lur a moment can, in candor and honor, so consider it. That period was crowded with important events i/i em- domestic history, and devolved immense cares upon the ministi-rs of the Govetjunent. First came the introduction of Geni-ral Uariison to power; next, ids calandious deaih. which covered the land in mournina, and filled it willi lameniaii on. Tl ten the accession of the now President of the I'niled States. In such a period it cannot be pretendi.'d that an elaborate reply to the letter of Mr. Fox, such as the circuni- statices required, should have been thrown off in the exlem[)oraneous haste of a speech in this House. It was to be the starting point of the foreign policy of the new Administration, and was to be written, not for time only, but as it were for (Mernity. Its princi[)!t's were to be deliberately meditated, and its language care- fully composed, li was to be examinetl by the Executive, and on the change of thai Executive to be re-examined by him who is to be responsible lor the future action of the Government. It was to be prepared amidst all the harassing cares and (oils attendin;: thi> commencement oi" a new Administration; interrupted not only bv a death in the i''amily of the Secretary — of which 1 say nothing — but by the mortal sickness of the President of the United Slates. No man who recalls to nund all this, can impute delay in the matter :o the Depaitment of Slate, tspeci- allv as there was nothing to render it necessary to give an instant answer to the demand of the British Government. liut whilst explanation and justification on the piirt of our Government might well wait for a convenient time, its action could not wait. That was hurried on by the progress of events. On the 'Z-2(\ of March, only ten days after the date of Mr. Fox's demand, McLeod stood for trial at Lockport, in the western extremity of the State of New Ytuk; and upon the issue of that trial, it might be, depended the ; question of peace or war between Great Britain and the United Slates. Under i' what influences 'ind in whose hands that trial might be, the GJovernnient knew not m ^ !^«l 11 It did in these circumstances what the safeguard of the honor of the nation iinperi- i I ! oiisly demanded. It despatched an agent of its own, not to interfere with the coursB ; of justice in New York — for thai Mr. Crittenden neither did nor was instructed to ; du— but only tu be un the spot, ready to act in behalf uf the United States, un tli« \ 14 occurrence of any one of the sevfiral contin[;(>ncies which inioht render such action wise, consiitntlonal, and necessary. And \\w instrnotions to Mr. Crittenden wen;, at the time, nothing but an act of the memliers of the Government hetween them- selves, in which England had no part. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that neither in purpose nor in fact did the (Government of the United Stales on this occasion touch the sovereign rights of the State of New York. Like the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. ALroRD,) I would have the rights of that State in this matter to be held not only sacred, but sacrosanct. I repose en- tire contidence i.i the integrity of her courts. I believe they will deal wisely and justly in this mait»'r ; that they will administer the law in trutlj -ind in honor ; and that they will take into their consideration not only the municipal law of which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has had so much 'o say, but the law of nations also, which is as much the law of the State of New York as it is that of the United States. If that gentleman is to be believed, Mr. Webster has lost a great »;hance, as it is called, to grapple with England at a time when her arms were diffused over the world, and she was unable to cope with us to advantage. Sir, it is not the policy of the Government of the United States to go about grasping at advantages to do wrong. Her march is along the luminous path of justice and of honor. To England be that of grasping ambition, of outreaching rapacity, and of wrong, as wide as the all but boundless range of her empire. Us, however, she must not assail with impunity. \nd, that we may be able to meet her in the righteousness of a good cause, let us take care that in this thing no taint or blemish rests on the spotless ermine of our honor. Let us beware not to be diverted into the false issue of the case of McLeod, as viewed by the Opposition; but let us continue to stand upon the lofty elevation of truth and justice, where, like the knights in the old times of chivalry, we may abide, lance in rest, to defy the attacks of all chal- lengers, confident in reliance upon our own good right, and the just judgniont of God. This, and not the mercenary pursuit of' great chances, is the principle which animates the present Administration in its conduct towards England. It is more than once insinuated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that in this negotiation the Secretary of State has one set of motives, whilst not only the de- ceased President of the United Slates, but the present PresidiMit also, have had different ones ; and passag>^s of patriotic declarations from the inaugural addresses of Gen. Harrison and Mr. Tyler are r.ied to this end. Let not the gfntlemnn lay this flattering unction to his soui. I can assure him that, as well under the lute Executive as the present, the Administration has been animated in all its parts, by the same unanimous spirit of anxiety to preserve the peace of the United States, if it may be done with honor, and to resolve, at all hazards, to suffer no wrong on the part of England or any other Power to go unredressed. Sir, it remains only that I briefly touch one other subject in conclusion of the remarks which I had contemplated submitting to the House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania puts to us, very emphatically, the supposed dilemma in which the United States would be involved either way : whether the Supreme Court of New York shall overrule the plea of McLeod, and send him to his trial at bar, or whether, on the other hand, that court shall decide on the surrender of McLeod. I have said already, and I repeat, that 1 will not re-argue at length that part of this case which has been discussed in the Senate, and 1 touch upon it now only so far as may be requisite to the completeness of my reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I could not but be amused to hear that gentleman lamenting, with such interesting sadness, the omission of Mr. Webster to copy the language of Mr. Monroe, in the message quoted by him, (or rather of Mr. Adams, whose words they were,) in making statement of the principles which guide the foreign policy of the United States. Now it so 'lappens that, in the most important and material part of his letter to Mr. Fox, Mr. Webster, solicitous to be right, and to be right in ac cordance with those principles of our foreign policy which time and authority have lanctified, does follow the precise language of one of the most celebrated of the %. 15 no state papers of Mr. Monroe. But let that pass. The question is, whether the United States are involved in any dilemma which human forecas: could have prevented. Mr. Fox demands the immediate release ol' McLnod; to this Mr. Webster replies that that it Is impossible ; McLeod is in the hands of the law, and by that law only can he be discharged. It is not for the United States to loose his bonds by any sum- mary interposition on their part. His arrest, imprisonment, and trial, must take their course in thi' courts of the State of New York or (in certain contingencies) of the United States. The United S' jtes are a Government of constitutional and limited power ; and it is perfectly well understood at the present day, as a point of international law, that constitutional governments cannot and will not interpose, arbitrarily to change the course of inunicifial Justice, for the satisfaction of any grievance, real or supposed, of a foreign Power. This principle has been recog- nised by England herself, in a most celebrated case. In the reign of Queen Anne the Czar Peter, of Muscovy, being aggrieved by an injury done in England to his ambassador, Andrew Alattueof, sent to demand redress, and this in the peremptory form of a threat of instant war if that redress were not granted. But the Queen's Government most nobly replied that she could not grant the redress demanded, be- cause it involved a violation of the law of the land ; and that she could do nothing implicating the rights, though it were of the meanest of her subjects, unless warrant- ed by the law of the land. The GoveriinitMit of England was one of constitution and of laws, not of arbitrary powers. To the same effect, and with still greater reason, does the Government of the United States say, in the present case, that we cannot lawfully, and therefore, even if otherwise disposed, we will not, undertake by arbitrary interference to arrest the constitutional action of the laws in the State of New York. For if Queen Anne was bound by the law of the land, how much more strictly is not the President of the United Stales restrained within the limits of the Federal Constitution ? But in certain contingencies the Federal Government does contemplate the libe- ration of McLeod as a thing to happen in the course of law. He may be tried by a jury and found not guilty of participation in the attack on the Caroline. That is one possibility, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania is altogether too quick to decide that question upon his own imperfect knowledge of the facts. Sir Allan McNab, for instance, swears positively ihat McLeod was not present. Then a jury, though it should find him to have been present in the attack, yet may give him the benefit of his plea in justification, as happened in the great revolutionary case of Preston's trial in Boston. Or the Supreme Court of New York may admit the force of that plea in this preliminary stage of the trial. Or the case may find its way into the Supreme Court of the United States, and thus be decided within this Capitol. Meanwhile, (here is anotiier view of this question which seems to have escaped the notice of gentlemen, but which, after all, if regarded for a mo- ment, and compared with the other views of the case, relieves the point of interna- tional law from all the confusion and obscurity in which it is now enveloped. The Federal Government looks to the possible event of the liberation of McLeod by some lawful act of its own, in the discharge of its public duty to the whole United States, of whose peace and honor it is the guardian. That contingency presupposes sundry conditions. It presupposes that the attack on the Caroline was either pre- viously commanded or subsequently assumed by the British Government as a national act. It presunposes that that attack, thus commanded or assumed, constitutes an act of war; not, as some gentlemen have superficially contended, that it was war itself; involving the absurdity of the two nations having been from that day to this in a state of war; but that it was, as I have said, an act of war — of insolemn or imperfect war, as the books call it ; yet involving national responsibility for the act itself and all its consequences ; just as in the case of some isolated act of reprisals or retorsion, which our own Government might order. It presupposes that, in such a case, a nation which is aggrieved by the military attack of another nation is not justified by the custom of nations, or by common sense, in seizing upon a private foldier engaged in the attack, and extorting vengeance from his poor person, for I .; 16 wlifit lie did under ll ; onlors (if his Goveiniiu'iit ; wliirit orders bound hini iinpera- tivi'ly ; in disobeying which hf might be lifld lo the penalties of ireasoii, and in obeying which he whs the mere insiriimeni nf that Governniml. Are these pr» niises f.ilse in fact or in l.nv ] If jjiMitlenM-n deny tluMit, lo do so is to fall inevitably into this conclusion : that the United Slates have no « laini en the English Government for redress, in llie ni:iucr of the Caroline. If that was a na- tional art, you must look lor redress on account of it lo national responsibility. If you are of opinion that you have no rl.iinj in this ninlter, us aoainst ihe Brilisli Go- vernment, then you may, if you cIjoosi-, deal with the individuals engiif^ed in it, as su(h, as fast as you ^ei them into your power. This was the coursi- wiiich Eng- land pursued in ihe case of such of our citizens as she apprehended in arms in Up- per Canada ; and in doinc uhich she ndinquished all rii;ht of recourse to us as a nation. \nd in precisely the same proportion that you magnify McLeod,and ni«ke him ihe object of national pursuit, in liie same proportiiui do 30U diminish iho strength of our causc> in the matter of the Carolino. These two cases are situated at iIk! opposite ends of a lever, and as you raise the one you depress the other. And 1 once again entreat penilernen, on all sides of the House, not lo be misled in this way, to the prejudice of the public honor and the sacrifice of the rights of the United rotates. There is one set of supposable facts, and but one, to which the views of the Op- position, and tlie legal authorities on which ihey rely, are applicable. They cite a passage fiom Vaitvl, which seems at first blu>h to countenance their > iews, and to contradict those of the Secretary. In the ciialion of this passage, lliey wrest it from the context, and thus fall into an erroneous consiruclion of its meaning. And diey read it in a translaiion which in this place, as my friend fron» Michigan (Mr. How- ard) was good enou'^h lo susjgesi 10 me, docs not truly iepies(Mit ihe import ol ihe origuirtl, which orij;im| unequivocally su>tains ihe views o\' ihe St criiaiy. For it applies not lo ihe case of an act jierformed by a sohlicr in obedience to the uders of ids s'jperiiir officer, and the commind of ids Government, but Ic some act of in- dividual responsibility in its own nature, ll i'!;iy be, for instance, hat McLeod, if he killed Durfee, did so from private malice, aod if so, he is cleaily resoon>ihle io the laws of JNevv York for the act ; and if Im; did so, i cannm [)ut think il at ihu EngliTih Government, inst(>ad of miderlakinj: to protect him, woidd be ohd to see him punished, and the rather d he should have sought lo efiVct purposes of private malice, under ilie cover of i^imulaled obedience lo ihe orders ol his Guvernment. It may be that those orders did not coverlids fact. The genlleman from Penns) Ivania is too hasty in jumpinf; al conclusions before the premises are ascertained, ll does not follow, as he argiifs, that if the St.'premn Court of l\ew York should decide lo remand McLeod for trial, ihat decision would of necessii} involve the Federal Government in any tiilemnia. it may l)e that a full liial al bar would prove to be necf'ssary in order to as Hrn.in wiieiher in point ol" fact ihis be a case of individual or national responsibdii}'. 1 do noi say it is so, but I suggest it as what may l)e, and as presenting a conlini;ency concerning which the United States have not pronounced. 1 will not detain lite House with any further discussion of these questions. This only I add in conclusion, thai if all or either of the points in controversy between us and Great Britain shoidd end in war, I count with implicit confidence upon the pairiotisni of tin; Government in all its parts, of both Houses of Congres>, and evi ry niend)er of it, and on that of the whole People of the United States, lo unite in car- rying us trium|)hanily through it, 10 rally as on»} ntan under the broad banner of ihe Union, and never to yield uiilil the entire con'.inent is redeemed from foreign fiower and foreign influence, and Republican Governnunt shall be made to become the common blessing of tha whole of North America, from the Gulf of Mexico to the furthest shoreii of liie Arctic Sea. ,\ .; lU ^^4; » I t :>