27TH CONG.........3D SESS.

[The Senate of the United States, in secret session, on the 30th of August, 1842, passed the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be removed from the British treaty, the correspondence which accompanied it, and all the proceedings of the Senate thereon, embracing the speeches and remarks of Senators, as soon as the ratifications of the said treaty shall have been exchanged, and it shall have been proclaimed by the President of the United States."

The ratifications of the treaty were not exchanged in time for us to publish the proceedings, correspondence, and speeches thereon, in the Congressional Globe and Appendix for the last session of Congress, to which they properly belong. Therefore, in order to preserve these important papers, we shall publish them in our Congressional Globe and Appendix for the coming session of Congress. The proceedings and the correspondence we shall publish in the Congressional Globe.

The speeches

made by the Senators in secret session we shall publish in the Appendix, as fast as they come to our hands. They will all be contained, probably, in the second, third, and fourth numbers of the Appendix: the first number, and part of the second, it is supposed, will be occupied by the President's annual message to Congress, and the reports of the several heads of departments, which may accompany it.

We shall print between four and five thousand surplus copies of the Congressional Globe and Appendix, for the purpose of furnishing complete copies to all persons who may subscribe for those works before the first day of January next.

We shall send to some of our friends a copy of this number of the Congressional Globe, with a Prospectus in it, with the hope that they will obtain some subscribers for us.-EDITORS CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.]

On motion by Mr. Rives,

Ordered, That it be postponed to, and made the order of the day for, to-morrow, at half-past eleven o'clock.

THURSDAY, August 18, 1842.

Mr. Conrad submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the President be requested to furnish to the Senate all documents on file in the State Department, connected with the liberation of certain slaves, the property of American citizens, which were taken from the wreck of the schooner Hermosa, near Abaco, were carried into Nassau, and then liberated by the colonial authorities; also, copies of any correspondence which may have taken place on the subject of said slaves, between the minister of the United States at the Court of St. James, and the British Government.

The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the said resolution, and agreed thereto.

Ordered, That the Secretary lay the said resolution before the President of the United States.

The President pro tempore informed the Senate that the Secretary, having laid before the President of the United States the resolution passed this day, requesting the documents and correspondence relative to the slaves on board the Hermosa, the papers called for were forthwith delivered to him by the Secretary of State, with a request that, as they were originals, they might, at a proper time, be returned to the department.

The Senate resumed, as in committee of the whole, the consideration of the treaty with Great Britain; and, after debate,

On motion by Mr. King,

Ordered, That it be postponed to, and made the order of the day for, to-morrow, at half-rast eleven o'clock.

FRIDAY, August 19, 1842.

The Senate resumed, as in committee of the whole, the consideration of the treaty with Great Britain; and, after debate, no amendment having been made, the treaty was reported to the Senate.

Mr. Williams submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the treaty and documents now under consideration be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with instructions to report a resolution, directing the President of the United Siates to take immediate possession of the disputed territory, and to report such contingent measures as, in their opinion, may be necessary to maintain the just right of the nation.

The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the said resolution; and,

31.

On the question to agree thereto,

It was determined in the negative-yeas 8, nays

VOLUME 12.... No. 1.

On motion by Mr. Williams, (the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,) Those who voted in the affirmative areMessrs. Allen, Bagby, Fulton, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Walker, Williams. Those who voted in the negative are

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Porter, Preston, Rives, Smith of Indiana, Tallmadge, Tappan, White, Woodbridge, Woodbury, Young.

So the resolution was rejected.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

To strike out the eighth article from the treaty, The question was stated-"Shall the eighth article stand as part of the treaty?" and, after debate, On motion by Mr. Sevier, The Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, August 20, 1842.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the treaty with Great Britain; and,

The question recurring, "Shall the eighth article stand as part of the treaty?" after debate, It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 37, nays 12.

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wilcox, Williams, Woodbridge, Young.

Those who voted in the negative are

Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Linn, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Woodbury, Wright.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

To strike out of the first article of the treaty the following words:

"To the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook; thence southwestwardly, in a straight line, to a point on the north west branch of the river St. John, which point shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction; but if the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles from the nearest point of the summit or crest of the highlands that divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the river St. John, then the said point shall be made to recede down the said northwest branch of the river St. John, to a point seven miles, in a straight line, from the said summit or crest; thence in a straight line, in a course about south eight degrees west, to the point where the parallel of latitude of 46° 25′ north intersects the southwest branch of the St. John; thence southerly, by the said branch, to the source thereof in the highlands at the Metjarmette portage."

After debate, on the question, Shall these words stand as part of the first article?

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 38, nays 11.

Those who voted in the affirmative are-

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan, White, Woodbridge, Woodbury, and Wright.

Those who voted in the negative are-Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Walker, Wilcox, Williams, and Young.

Mr. Benton submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the treaty and documents now under consideration be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with instructions to report an amendment to the treaty, stipulating the right of the vessels of the United States, driven by tempest or carried by violence into any of the British West India islands, to depart from the same with all their

contents of persons and property, with all convenient despatch, and after receiving the hospitable treatment due to misfortune.

After debate, on the question to agree thereto, It was determined in the negative-yeas 11, nays 37.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative areMessrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Conrad, Linn, [Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Walker, Williams, and Young.

Those who voted in the negative are

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Crafts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan, White, Wilcox, Woodbridge, and Woodbury.

So the resolution was rejected.

Mr. Benton submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the treaty and documents now under consideration be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with instructions to report a resolution directing the President of the United States to take immediate possession of the disputed territory up to the line designated by the King of the Netherlands, and to maintain the State of Maine in possession of the territory south of that line.

After debate, on the question to agree thereto, It was determined in the negative-yeas 2, nays 37.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are-
Messrs. Benton, Sevier.

Those who voted in the negative areMessrs. Archer, Bagby, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Conrad, Crafts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, Tappan, White, Wilcox, Woodbridge.

So the resolution was rejected.
On motion by Mr. Tappan,

To strike out of the fifth article the following words, viz:

"And further to pay and satisfy said States, respectively, for all claims for expenses incurred by them in protecting the said heretofore disputed territory, and making a survey thereof, in 1838; the Government of the United States agreeing with the States of Maine and Massachusetts to pay them' the further sum of three hundred thousand dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of the conditions and equivalents received therefor from the Government of her Britannic Majesty;"

After debate, on the question, "Shall these words stand as part of the fifth article?"

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 34, nays 10.

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Crafts, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, White, Wilcox, Woodbridge, Young.

Those who voted in the negative areMessrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Conrad, Crittenden, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan.

No further amendment having been proposed, Mr. Rives submitted the following resolution: Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring,) That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States and the possessions of her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the final suppression of the African slave-trade, and for the giving up of criminals fugitive from justice, in certain cases. The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the said resolution.

On the question to agree thereto,

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 39, nays 9.

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate, Clayton, Crafts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Dayton, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, King, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan, Walker, White, Woodbridge, Woodbury, Wright, Young.

Those who voted in the negative areMessrs. Allen, Bagby, Benton, Buchanan, Conrad, Linn, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Williams.

So the resolution was agreed to.

Ordered, That the Secretary lay the said resolution before the President of the United States. TUESDAY, August 23, 1842.

Mr. Crittenden submitted the following resolution:

Resolved by the Senate, That the injunction of secrecy be removed as to the late treaty with Great Britain, and the proceedings of the Senate thereon; except only that this resolution shall not authorize the publication of said treaty, or any amendment proposed, or proceeding relating thereto, or any speech made in the Senate on its consideration and discussion.

After debate, on motion by Mr. Wright, Ordered, That the said resolution lie on the table.

WEDNESDAY, August 24, 1842.

On motion by Mr. Conrad,

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate return to the Department of State the original papers obtained from that department, under the resolution of the 18th instant, relating to the slaves that were taken from the wreck of the schooner Hermosa, and liberated by the British colonial authorities at Nassau.

MONDAY, August 29, 1842.

Mr. Benton submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be forthwith removed from the treaty with Great Britain, the correspondence which accompanied it, and the proceedings thereon, including the speeches and remarks of the Senators.

The Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to consider the said resolution.

On motion by Mr. Preston,

That the said resolution be referred to a select committee to consider and report thereon, It was determined in the negative. On motion by Mr. Rives,

That the said resolution be amended by adding thereto the following:

"As soon as the treaty shall have been proclaimed by the President of the United States as having been duly ratified by both parties."

On motion by Mr. Barrow,

Ordered, That the said resolution lie on the table.

Mr. Benton submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to inform the Senate whether any conferences, written or oral, formal or informal, took place between the American negotiator and the late special minister from Great Britain to the United States, in relation to the payment, assumption, or guarantee of the State debts by the United States; and, if so, to communicate the same to the Senate.

TUESDAY, August 30, 1842.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by him yesterday, together with the amen ment proposed thereto by Mr. Rives; and the amendment was rejected.

On motion by Mr. Tallmadge,

That the resolution submitted by Mr. Benton lie on the table,

It was determined in the negative-yeas 16, nays 19.

On motion by Mr. Allen,

The yeas and nays being desired by one fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative areMessrs. Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Calhoun, Clayton, Evans, Graham, Huntington, Miller, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Sevier, Tallmadge, White, Woodbridge.

Those who voted in the negative are

Messrs. Allen, Archer, Bagby, Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Cratts, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ful

ton, Henderson, King, Linn, Mangum, Merrick, Preston, Smith of Indiana, Tappan, Woodbury. On motion by Mr. Conrad,

To amend the resotution submitted by Mr. Benton, by striking out all after the word "resolved," and inserting the following:

“That the injunction of secrecy be removed from the proceedings and debates on the treaty with Great Britain recently ratified by this body, as soon as the ratification thereof by the British Government shall have been communicated to the Executive;"

On motion by Mr. Tallmadge,

That the said resolution and proposed amendment lie on the table,

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 17, nays 15.

On motion by Mr. Benton,

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are

Messrs. Bates, Berrien, Calhoun, Clayton, Crafts, Cuthbert, Evans, Fulton, Graham, Huntington, Merrick, Miller, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Tallmadge, Woodbridge.

Those who voted in the negative are

Messrs. Allen, Bagby, Bayard, Benton, Buchanan, Crittenden, Henderson, King, Linn, Mangum, Morehead, Smith of Indiana, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury.

Mr. Buchanan submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be removed from the British treaty, the correspondence which accompanied it, and all the proceedings of the Senate thereon, embracing the speeches and remarks of Senators, as soon as the ratifications of the said treaty shall have been exchanged, and it shall have been proclaimed by the President of the United States.

OFFICIAL PAPERS

Connected with the treaty of Washington.

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Transmitting the treaty with Great Britain to the Senate of the United States.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the results of the negotiations recently had in this city with the British Minister special and extraordinary.

These results comprise

1st. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States, and the possessions of her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and the surrender of criminals fugitive from justice in certain cases.

2d. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with American merchant vessels driven by stress of weather, or carried by violence, into the ports of those colonies.

3d. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and destruction of the steamboat Caroline. 4th. A correspondence on the subject of impress

ment.

If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long subsisted between the two Governments, has been the subject of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has sometimes led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing the existing peace. Both the United States, and the States more immediately concerned, have entertained no doubt of the validity of the American title to all the territory which has been in dispute; but that title was controverted, and the Government of the United States had agreed to make the dispute a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually had, but had failed to settle the controversy; and it was found, at the commencement of last year, that a correspondence had been in progress between the two Governments for a joint commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbitrator, with authority to make a final decision. That correspon

dence, however, had been retarded by various occur. rences, and had come to no definite result when the special mission of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on the part of England afforded, in the judgment of the Executive, a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty, without further reference to arbitration. It seemed entirely proper that, if this purpose were entertained, consultation should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are herewith communicated, were addressed to the Governors of those States, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer with the authorities of this Government, on a line, by agreement or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. This suggestion was met by both States in a spirit of candor and patriotism, and promptly complied with. Four commissioners on the part of Maine, and three on the part of Massachusetts (all persons of distinction and high character) were duly appointed and commissioned, and lost no time in presenting themselves at the seat of Government of the United States. These commissioners have been in correspondence with this Government during the period of the discussions; have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications; have aided the general object with their counsel and advice; and, in the end, have unanimously signified their assent to the line proposed in the treaty.

Ordinarily, it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexed; but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States concerned, to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.

Connected with the settlement of the line of the Northeastern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river. Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this character, has been matter of controversy, and is of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of Hall's stream, and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire, and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the Netherlands.

By the treaty of 1783, the line is to proceed down the Connecticut river to the 45th degree of north latitude, and thence west, by that parallel, till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only leave, on the British side, a considerable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouse's Point, the site of a military work of the United States; it has been regarded as an object of importance, not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend Rouse's Point within the territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the true line, has been obtained; and the consideration for this relinquishment is to enure, by the provisions of the treaty, to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.

The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent, and for considerations satisfactory to them; the chief of these considerations being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agricultural products grown and raised in Maine, on the waters of the St. John and its tributaries, down that river to the ocean, free from imposition or disability. The importance of this privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at prosent by pine forests of great value, and

much of it capable hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided.

So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all that she requires; and New York and Vermont are quieted to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference which would be made in the northern boundary of these two States, by correcting the parallel of latitude, may be seen on Tanner's maps, (1836,) new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9.

From the intersection of the 45th degree of north latitude with the St. Lawrence, and along that river and the lakes to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, the line was definitively agreed on by the commissioners of the two Governments, under the 6th article of the treaty of Ghent. But between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the Woods, the commissioners acting under the 7th article of that treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore made no joint report to their respective Governments. The first of these was Sugar island, or St. George's island, lying in St. Mary's river, or the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior. By the present treaty, this island is embraced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil and position, it is regarded as of much value.

Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north of Ile Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence, by the river St. Louis, to the Rainy Lake. The American commissioner supposed the true course to be, to proceed by way of the Dog river. Attempts were made to compromise this difference, but without success. The details of these proceedings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the commissioners.

From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that treaty do not harmonize with its natural features, as now ascertained. Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of Pigeon river. The present treaty, therefore, adopts that estuary and river, and afterwards pursues the usual route, across the height of land by the various portages and small lakes, till the line reaches Rainy Lake; from which the commissioners agreed on the extension of it to its termination, in the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country on and near the shore of the lake, between Pigeon river on the north, and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory of four millions of acres, northward of the claim set up by the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent. From the height of land at the head of Pigeon river, westerly to the Rainy Lake, the country is understood to be of little value, being described by surveyors, and marked on the map, as a region of rock and water.

From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which is found to be in latitude 45 deg. 23 min. 55 sec. north, existing treaties require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the 45th parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky mountains.

After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the Rocky mountains, so little probability was found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present, that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation, to be entered upon between this Government and the British minister, as part of his duties under his special mission.

By the treaty of 1783, the line of division along the rivers and lakes, from the place where the 45th parallel of north latitude strikes the St. Lawrence, to the outlet of Lake Superior, is invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a line, if extended according to the literal terms of the

treaty, would, it is obvious, oecasionally intersect islands. The manner in which the commissioners of the two Governments dealt with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But where the line, thus following the middle of the river, or watercourse, did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries.

It has happened, therefore, in a few instances, that the use of the river, in particular places, would be greatly diminished, to one party or the other, if, in fact, there was not a choice in the use of channels and passages. Thus, at the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence-a dangerous passage, practicable only for boats the only safe run is between the Long Sault islands and Barnhart's island (all which belong to the United States) on one side, and the American shore on the other. On the other hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of water, from Lake Erie into the Detroit river, is between Bois Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So again there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of facility and usefulness, between the several islands in the river St. Clair, at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In these three cases, the treaty provides that all the several passages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both parties.

The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the suppression of the African slavetrade, and the complaints made to this Government within the last three or four years, (many of them but too well founded,) of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by British cruisers, could not but form a delicate and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held.

The early and prominent part which the Government of the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful and inhuman traffic, is well known. By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent, it is declared that the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the principles of humanity and justice, and that both his Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition; and it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. The Government of the United States has, by law, declared the African slave-trade piracy; and, at its suggestion, other nations have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting in honest and zealous efforts, made in con formity with the wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire abolition of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast; but these efforts, and those of other countries directed to the same end, have proved, to a considerable degree, unsuccessful. Treaties are known to have been entered into some years ago between England and France, by which the former power, which usually maintains a large naval force on the African station, was authorized to seize, and bring in for adjudication, vessels found engaged in the slave-trade under the French flag.

It is known that, in December last, a treaty was signed in London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, having for its professed object a strong and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. This treaty was not officially communicated to the Government of the United States; but its provisions and stipulations are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is understood to be not yet ratified on the part of France.

No application or request has been made to this Government to become a party to this treaty; but the course it might take in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded, and the stipulations which it contains, have caused warm animadversion and great political excitement.

In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress, I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled,

I have thought it most consistent with the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its own laws, and perform its own obligations, by its own means and its own power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one nation by the cruisers of another, for any purpose except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far better, by other means, to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate.

The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the two Governments shall maintain, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slavetrade.

Another consideration of great importance has recommended this mode of fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. Our commerce along the western coast of Africa is extensive, and supposed to be increasing. There is reason to think that, in many cases, those engaged in it have met with interruptions and annoyances, caused by the jealousy and instigation of rivals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this subject have reached the Government. A respectable naval force on the coast is the natural resort and security against further occurrences of this kind.

The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed high crimes, seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring nation, would seem to be an act due to the cause of general justice, and properly belonging to the present state of civilization and intercourse. The British provinces of North America are separated from the States of the Union by a line of several thousand miles; and, along portions of this line, the amount of population on either side is quite considerable, while the passage of the boundary is always easy.

Offenders against the law, on the one side, transfer themselves to the other. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are brought to justice; but very often they wholly escape. A consciousness of immunity, from the power of avoiding justice in this way, instigates the unprincipled and reckless to the commission of offences; and the peace and good neighborhood of the border are consequently often disturbed.

In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United States, the Governors of States are often applied to for their surrender; and questions of a very embarrassing nature arise from these applications. It has been thought highly important, therefore, to provide for the whole case, by a proper treaty stipulation. The article on the subject in the proposed treaty is carefully confined to such offences as all mankind agree to regard as heinous, and destructive of the security of life and property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes, the object has been to exclude all political offences, or criminal charges, arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and other offences of similar character, are excluded.

And lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse should arise from the stipulation, rendering its continuance, in the opinion of one or both of the parties, not longer desirable, it is left in the power of either to put an end to it at will.

The destruction of the steamboat Caroline at Schlosser, four or five years ago, occasioned no small degree of excitement at the time, and became the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. That correspondence having been suspended for a considerable period, was renewed in the spring

of the last year; but, no satisfactory result having been arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence had ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it on the present occasion. It has only been so far discussed, in the correspondence now submitted, as it was accomplished by a violation of the territory of the United States. The letter of the British minister, while he attempts to justify that violation upon the ground of a pressing and overruling necessity-admitting, nevertheless, that, even if justifiable, an apology was due for it, and accompanying this acknowledgment with assurances of the sacred regard of his Government for the inviolability of national territory-has seemed to me sufficient to warrant forbearance from any further remonstrance against what took place, as an aggression, on the soil and territory of the country.

On the subject of the interference of the British authorities in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the correspondence which has taken place, showing the grounds taken by this Government, and the engagements entered into by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the just expectation of the people of the United States.

The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this country by British cruisers, although not practised in time of peace, (and, therefore, not at present a productive cause of difference and irritation,) has, nevertheless, hitherto been so prominent a topic of controversy, and is so likely to bring on renewed contentions at the first breaking out of an European war, that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the Secretary of State to the British minister explains the ground which the Government has assumed, and the principles which it means to uphold. For the defence of these grounds, and the maintenance of these principles, the most perfect reliance is placed on the intelligence of the American people, and on their firmness and patriotism in whatever touches the honor of the country, or its great and essential interests. JOHN TYLER. WASHINGTON, August 11, 1842. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BRITISH SPECIAL MISSION.

NORTHEASTERN AND NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY.
Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster.

WASHINGTON, June 13, 1842. SIR: On considering the most effectual mode of proceeding to arrive at an amicable and satisfactory termination of the long-continued controversy respecting the Northeastern boundary between the British colony of New Brunswick and the State of Maine, I believe that I may confidently conclude, from what has passed in the preliminary conferences which I have had the honor of holding with you, that we concur in the opinion, that no advantage would be gained by reverting to the interminable discussion on the general grounds on which each party considers their claims respectively to rest. In the course of the many years that this discussion has lasted, every argument, on either side, is apparently exhausted, and that without any approach to an agreement. The present attempt, therefore, of a settlement, must rest, for its success, not on the renewal of a controversy, but on proceeding on the presumption that, all means of a reciprocal conviction having failed, as also the experiment of calling in the aid of a friendly arbiter and umpire, there remains only the alternative of a compromise for the solution of this otherwise apparently insurmountable difficulty; unless, indeed, it were determined to try a second arbitration, attended by its delay, trouble, and expense, in defiance of past experience as to the probability of any more satisfactory results.

It is undoubtedly true, that, should our present attempt unfortunately fail, there might remain no other alternative but a second reference; yet when I consider all the difficulty and uncertainty attending it, I trust that all parties interested will come to the conclusion, that the very intricate details connected with the case must be better known and judged by our two Governments than any diligence can make them to be by any third party, and that a sincere candid disposition to give reciprocally fair weight to the arguments on either side is likely to

lead us to a more satisfactory settlement than an engagement to abide by the uncertain award of a less competent tribunal. The very friendly and cordial reception given by you, sir, as well as by all the authorities of your Government, to the assurance that ny mission here, by my Sovereign, has been determined by an unfeigned desire to settle this and all other questions of difference between us, on principles of conciliation and justice, for bid me to anticipate the possibility of the failure of our endeavors applied with sincerity to this purpose.

With this view of the case, therefore, although not unprepared to enter into the general argument, I abstain from so doing from the conviction that an amicable settlement of this vexed question, so generally desired, will be thereby best promoted. But, at the same time, some opinions have been industriously emitted throughout this controversy, and in some instances by persons in authority, of a description so much calculated to mislead the public mind, that I think it may be of service to offer a few observations.

I do not, of course, complain of the earnest adherence of partisans on either side to the general arguments on which their case is supposed to rest; but a position has been taken, and facts have been repeatedly stated, which I am sure the authorities of the Federal Government will be abundantly able to contradict, but which have evidently given rise to much public misapprehension. It is maintained that the whole of this controversy about the boundary began in 1814; that up to that period the line as claimed by Maine was undisputed by Great Britain; and that the claim was avowedly founded on motives of interest, to obtain the means of conveniently connecting the British provinces. I confine these remarks to the refuting this imputation; and I should, indeed, not have entered upon controversy, even on this, if it did not appear to me to involve, in some degree, a question of national sincerity and good faith.

The assertion is founded on the discussions which preceded the treaty of peace signed at Ghent in 1814. It is perfectly true that a proposal was submitted by the British plenipotentiaries for the revision of the boundary line on the Northeastern frontier, and that it was founded on the position that it was desired to secure the communication between the provinces, the precise delimitation of which was at that time imperfectly known. The American plenipotentiaries, in their first communication from Ghent to the Secretary of State, admit that the British ministers expressly disclaimed any intention of acquiring an increase of territory, and that they proposed the revision for the purpose of preventing uncertainty and dispute-a purpose sufficiently justified by subsequent events. Again, in their note of the 4th of September, 1814, the British ministers remind those from America that the boundary had never been ascertained, and that the line claimed by America, which interrupted the communication between Halifax and Quebec, never could have been in the contemplation of the parties to the treaty of peace of 1783. The same view of the case will be found to pervade all the communications between the plenipotentiaries of the two countries at Ghent. There was no attempt to press any cession of territory on the ground of policy or expediency; but, although the precise geography of the country was then imperfectly known, it was notorious at the time that different opinions existed as to the boundary likely to result from continuing the north line from the head of the river St. Croix. This appears to have been so clearly known and admitted by the American plenipotentiaries, that they, in submitting to the conference the project of a treaty, offer a preamble to their 4th article, in these words: "Whereas, neither that part of the highlands lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of peace between the two powers, as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut river, has yet been ascertained," &c. It should here be observed that these are the words proposed--not by the British, but by the American negotiators; and that they were finally adopted by both in the fifth article of the treaty.

To close my observations upon what passed on this subject at Ghent, I would draw your attention to the letter of Mr. Gallatin, one of the American plenipotentiaries, to Mr. Secretary Monroe, of the 25th of December, 1814. He offers the following conjecture as to what might probably be the arguments of Great Britain against the lines set up by America: "They hope that the river which empties