to the exercise of the right are scarcely compatible with its existence, but in the case of The Caroline the contingency did not arise. It was not the continuation of a pursuit into an enemy's territory, but a premeditated attack of the military authorities of the Province of Upper Canada, executed during the night, against an American vessel at anchor in a harbor of the United States, on the shores of the Niagara Strait, which separates the respective territories of the two countries. All the writers on public law, especially the English, agree in forbidding such an act of hostility within neutral territory, even against an enemy.1 The subject of the other article, which, as well as the case of The Caroline, was discussed between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, was the affair of The Creole. The facts were these. An American planter sailed from Richmond, Virginia, on board of this vessel, with 135 slaves belonging to him, whom he was carrying to New Orleans. In the straits, between Florida and the Bahama Islands, the negroes revolted, killed their master, put the captain in irons, and wounded several of the crew, and then took possession of the vessel and carried her into Nassau. The governor arrested nineteen of the slaves concerned in the revolt and assassination, and set the others at liberty. As to the prisoners, he asked the direction of his government.

The case arose before the extradition treaty with Great Britain, but subsequent to the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. The inquiry is preceded by an exposition of the law of nations, in reference to extradition, substantially the same as is given in the "Elements," which work was, indeed, quoted in this very matter, by Lord Campbell, during a debate in the House of Lords, in which he, as well as Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, and Lord Lyndhurst, took part. Mr. Wheaton then remarks that slavery has existed, as a fact, among the most

De la question de juridiction qui s'est presentée devant les cours des EtatsUnis dans l'affaire de Macleod, par M. Henri Wheaton, Ministre des Etats-Unis, à Berlin. Rev. Etr. et Franç., tom. ix. p. 81.

civilized nations; and that though the slave-trade has been abolished by all the powers of Europe and America, its fruits still remain in the United States, Brazils, and the Spanish colonies, the British emancipation act never having been followed in those countries. The independence of every nation in this matter must be respected; and it was to attribute an immense. and unheard of power to the legislation of a single nation, to accord to it the right of changing the laws which control the property of all nations. Until Sommersett's case, in 1771, slavery was recognized in England, and slaves were publicly sold at the Exchange. Even so late as 1827, Lord Stowell decided that, though slaves arriving in England were free while they remained there, and their masters could not send them out of the country, yet if they returned to the colonies, no matter by what means, their ancient condition was restored.1 The laws of France formerly preserved, to a greater or less extent, the control of the master over the slaves brought with him from the colonies; but since 1791, the slave who voluntarily seeks an asylum in France, under ordinary circumstances, may claim the protection of the maxim which frees whomever touches the soil; but the French ports cannot become a refuge for robbers, to find succor and impunity for crimes committed against the persons and property of a friendly nation.

Mr. Wheaton shows that, though in the Netherlands, in the middle ages, foreign slaves were free on touching the soil, a distinction was made in favor of masters arriving from the colonies, accompanied by their slaves. In Denmark, a slave from the colonies may be reclaimed by his master. In Prussia, masters travelling with their slaves preserve their rights over them; and in Russia, and other countries where slavery still exists, extradition by the authorities of the country to which the serf escapes prevails; while in Spain and Portugal, masters bringing their slaves from the colonies preserve their property in them. Hence

1 Hagg. Admiralty Rep. vol. ii. p. 96. The Slave Grace.

he concludes that the nations of Europe have not established it, as an invariable rule, having the force of a moral law, that an individual, a slave in the country from whence he departs, becomes free when he touches European soil; and if they had, it would not follow that it applied to the case of The Creole.

The only remaining question was, whether the particular circumstances, connected with the arrival of The Creole in the port of Nassau, constituted such an exception to the general rule as to authorize the American government to ask any satisfaction of the English government.

Mr. Wheaton regards the affair of The Creole neither as a case of the extradition of the offenders by the government of the country, where they have committed a crime, nor as the ordinary one of slaves seeking an asylum in a country where slavery is not tolerated. The general principle is undoubted, that the vessels of a country, on the ocean, and beyond the territorial limits of any other nation, are subject to its exclusive jurisdiction, and that they only pass under the jurisdiction of a foreign State when they voluntarily enter its ports. The Creole never ceased to be subject exclusively to American jurisdiction. Entering into a friendly port, against the will of the owner and captain, and in consequence of a crime on the high seas, cognizable only by the courts of the United States, The Creole continued to enjoy the rights of her flag, and the captain had a claim for the assistance of the local authorities to regain possession of his vessel. The negroes could not be said to have arrived in English territory; they could not be considered as mixed with the inhabitants; and whatever the generality of its expression, the law could not be taken to be applicable to slaves arriving in the country in consequence of crime, and against the will of their owners.1

1 Examen des questions de juridiction qui se sont elevées eutre les gouvernements Anglois et Américain dans l'affaire de la Créole. Rev. Etr. et. Fr., tom. ix. p. 345.

It may not be irrelevant to state that, by the decision of umpire, a full indemnity was accorded for the value of the slaves on board of The Creole, by the joint commission, under the convention of February 8, 1853, between the United States and Great Britain, for the settlement of claims against either government, by the citizens or subjects of the other, arising subsequent to the treaty of Ghent. The principles contended for by the American government, and discussed in the preceding argument of Mr. Wheaton, were thereby recognized and sustained. Similar adjudications were also rendered in several other cases.1

Of an analogous character with the preceding papers was an article published by Mr. Wheaton on the Constitution of the United States, in the Staats-Zeitung, the official gazette of Prussia, on the 27th of March, 1843. The object of it was, to show the distinction between the debts of the individual States and that of the Union. It appeared at a time when the repudiation of their obligations by some of the States was materially affecting the American reputation abroad; and the occasion was taken to point out the fact, that neither the general government nor the other members of the Confederacy were in any wise connected with the transactions, which were the subject of complaint. While he shows that "the American federal government has always fulfilled, with the most conscientious fidelity, its engagements towards its foreign as well as its domestic creditors," he denies that the suspension of the regular payment of interest on their public debt, by some of the States, where it concerns foreign creditors, contains within itself a casus belli, on the part of those powers whose subjects suffer from it; and he refers to the fact, that the federal government had not the constitutional power to compel the States to comply with these obligations. As to its being, in any case, a casus belli, he remarks:

1 New York Evening Post, January, 1855. Letter dated London, January 12, 1855.

"This deduction proceeds from the supposition, that where a sovereign State fails to fulfil its agreement with the subjects of a foreign State, it becomes a ground of reprisals on the part of the latter. Such a supposition is nowhere supported by the publicists, and this idea has always been set aside by the British government, in the different claims which it has made in favor of British creditors in Spain, Portugal, and the South American republics." Writing to a friend, about the same period, he says:"A great deal of my time and attention is occupied in refuting the misrepresentations of our national character and conduct, which are constantly appearing in the German papers, from no friendly source, concerning slavery, the slave-trade, State credits, Lynch-law, &c. &c. &c. I hold it to be the duty of a public minister, to take care of the honor of his country abroad."

The revolutions produced in the international policy of China, consequent on the peace of the 26th of August, 1842, with the cession of Hong Kong to England, and the probable opening, through the British treaty, of her ports to the commerce of the world, led, in Germany, to a very thorough examination of the resources of that great empire, including as well. its overland trade with Russia, as its relations with the maritime States of Europe and America, and its internal condition under the Mandschu dynasty, which succeeded, in 1644, to the ancient sovereigns of the country. Not only on account of the commerce from Germany, that passed through Russia, but to promote a maritime intercourse by the Cape of Good Hope, Prussia was preparing, in connection with the States of the Zollverein,

1 A trade had long been carried on, from the frontier emporium of Kiakta, not only with Russia, but in German manufactures, especially from the Prussian province of Silesia, and the value of the Chinese goods sold at the fair of NishneNovgorod, in 1841, amounted to 6,921,473 silver roubles; while the commerce between the two great empires, Mr. Wheaton showed, might be much increased and facilitated by the free navigation of the Amoor, the only great river of Siberia, which, directing its course from east to west, falls into the open sea.

m