Page images
PDF
EPUB

. CUM

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 27, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. HARLAN made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 322.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred S. Bill 322, for the relief of purchasers of public lands within the timber reserve opposite Fort Kearny, and for the settlers within the Winnebago agency reservation, the Fort Atkinson reservation, and the timber reserve opposite Fort Crawford, all in the State of Iowa, have had the same under consideration, and have instructed me to report:

The timber reservation opposite Fort Kearny had been long abandoned by the War Department, and its existence as a reserve apparently forgotten. It was surveyed, brought into market, and sold as other public lands. The issuing of patents seems to have been suspended because these lands had not been formally transferred by the War Department to the Department of the Interior. The Commissioner of the General Land Office, in a letter hereto appended, expresses "the opinion that the proposed legislation in this case will be just and proper;" in which opinion your committee concur.

The Fort Atkinson and Mission reservations, and timber reservations opposite Fort Crawford, were abandoned by the War Department many years since, and were settled on and improved by settlers as other public land.

In 1854 the buildings at Fort Atkinson were sold to Catharine Newington, who, by a subsequent special law of Congress, was allowed to purchase one section, on which the buildings were situated, as a pre-emptor, at $1 25 per acre.

The Secretary of War, after an examination of the subject, by special agent on the grounds, in the year 1857, ordered the sale of that part of the timber reservation opposite Fort Crawford, in the possession and occupancy of actual settlers, not exceeding 160 acres to each, at $1 25 per acre to said settlers; which sale, as your committee are informed, has been made. Your committee, therefore, as at present informed, see no sufficient reason for special legislation in relation to this reservation, but would recommend the application of the same principle, in the sale of the Fort Atkinson and Winnebago reserva

tions, as was applied in the sale of the timber reservation opposite Fort Crawford, as above mentioned.

Your committee, therefore, recommend the passage of the bill with an amendment, viz:

Strike out all that part of the bill which relates to the timber reservation opposite Fort Crawford, and amend the title accordingly.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

April 28, 1858.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your two communications of the 24th instant: the one, in relation to the proposed confirmation, by the act of Congress, of certain entries of lands in the timber reserve opposite Fort Kearny, and asking for the form of a bill for that purpose; the other, proposing that provision shall also be embodied in such form of a bill for the relief of settlers on the military reserves at Fort Atkinson and the Indian mission, and for the disposition of other unoccupied lands within said reserves. In reply, I have the honor to enclose the form of a bill for the confirmation of the entries above named, and to express the opinion that the proposed legislation in this case will be just and proper. With reference to the proposed disposition of the lands in the reserves at Fort Atkinson, &c., I would respectfully suggest that those lands being under the exclusive control of the War Department, it is not the province of this office to recommend what disposition shall be made of them, and that any communication with a view to that object should be addressed to the Secretary of war. The map and report are herewith returned. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

THOS. A. HENDRICKS,

Commissioner.

[blocks in formation]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate instructing them "to inquire whether any legislation is necessary to enable the President of the United States to protect American vessels against British aggression in the Gulf of Mexico or elsewhere," and to whom has also been referred "the message of the President of the United States communicating, in answer to a resolution of the Senate, information concerning the recent search or seizure of American vessels by foreign armed cruisers in the Gulf of Mexico," have had the same under consideration, and now report:

The documents accompanying the message of the President show a series of aggressive acts on the commerce of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and off the West India islands, by the naval forces of Great Britain, of a character so marked and extraordinary as to have fixed the attention of the country.

American vessels pursuing the paths of lawful commerce on the high seas, or passing near the American coast, from one domestic port to another, under the flag of their country, have been pursued, fired into, and compelled to stop, by the public force of a foreign power; questioned as to their destination, their cargo, and the character of their crews; required to submit to an examination of their sea papers, and to a scrutiny into the objects and purpose of their voyage.

In another instance, American vessels anchored in the harbor of a friendly power, at the port of Sagua la Grande, in the Island of Cuba, have been subjected to a police inquisition by the same foreign power, and in like manner required to exhibit their papers, and to submit to question as to their destination, the cause of their absence from home, and the number and character of their crews.

It would appear from the letter of the consul of the United States at Havana (a document accompanying the message) that no less than fifteen American vessels, lying in the harbor, or in port at Sagua la Grande, were made to undergo this humiliating system of espionage; whilst six vessels on the high seas, in the Gulf of Mexico, bearing

their country's flag, were, as above stated, by actual exhibition and use of force, endangering, in some instances, the lives of those on board, compelled to stop, and submit to detention, until a boarding officer was satisfied in such questions as it was his pleasure to put.

Besides the instances above cited, officially communicated with the President's message, in reply to a call of the Senate, each successive arrival from the infested quarter brings intelligence of new and additional aggressions of like character, committed by the same power, on vessels bearing the flag of the United States.

It has occasionally happened heretofore, under circumstances of misapprehension, a misconstruction of orders, or from other and like causes, that vessels of the United States have been subjected by the armed force of a foreign power to visitation and search, in violation of international law, and in derogation of the independence of our flag; and in such isolated cases the honor of the country may have been sufficiently vindicated by a disclaimer of intended wrong, or by rebuke of the officer offending. But the continuous and persevering character of the aggressions now brought to the notice of the country, committed by a power with whom we are at peace, and almost within sight of our shores, are sufficient to arouse the just indignation of the country, and call, in the opinion of the committee, for the most prompt and efficient measures, to arrest at once, and to end finally and forever, the commission of like indignities to our flag.

The documents accompanying the message disclose the fact that these acts of visitation and examination of American vessels were sought to be justified under the plea of necessity for the suppression of the slave trade, supposed to be or actually carried on between Africa and the island of Cuba.

The committee will not go into any inquiry in reference to such alleged necessity. It is sufficient for them to know that the assent of the United States, although often invoked, has never been yielded to -any such system of police on the seas. They rest on the position not to be controverted, that, by no principle of international law, can a vessel under the flag of its country be visited or detained on the high seas, in time of peace, by any foreign power, under any pretext or for any purpose whatever, without the consent of those over whom the flag waves.

Without going at large into the questions heretofore involved as to the rights of independent nations on that common highway of the world, the open sea, the committee deem this, nevertheless, a fit occasion to declare the principles always maintained by the United States, as regulating the use of the open or high seas in time of peace, and from which are derived rights to the people of the United States admitting of no restraint or qualification and to be maintained at whatever cost.

There is no right of visitation, far less of search, to be exercised in time of peace, by any nation, on the ships or vessels of other nations, nor can there be, so long as the laws of the civilized world touching the freedom of the seas are respected by civilized men. Such claim, therefore, having no foundation in law, or in the comity of nations, can never be tolerated by an independent power, but in derogation of

her sovereignty. Neither is there any distinction to be drawn in the claim of right, between visitation at sea by the armed vessels of a foreign power, when unattended by examination or search, or such visitations when so attended.

The offence and violation of public law consists in the visitation, without regard to its purpose, when claimed as a right, against the will of the party subjected to it; were it otherwise, there would follow, of course, the correlative right to arrest and detain the vessel until the visitation is effected.

The committee find these principles admitted and enforced by the opinions and the decisions of the most eminent judicial authorities, both in this country and in Great Britain.

(The case of the "Mariana Flora," in the Supreme Court of the United States, reported in 11 Wheaton, page 1. And in England, the case of "Le Louis," decided by Lord Stowell in 1817, and reported in Dodson's Admiralty Reports, vol. 2, page 210.)

They are founded in two simple elemental principles of public law : first, in the equality of all independent states; and second, the common use by all recognized states of the open sea as a highway in time of peace.

Such are the rights and immunities of our citizens navigating the ocean, which have been flagrantly violated and outraged by armed vessels of a foreign power in time of profound peace, and in some instances almost within sight of our own shores.

Indignant as the American people are, and ought to be, at the character and persistent repetition of such aggressions, yet their occurrence and gravity will opportunely supply the occasion to end, now and forever, all future question as to this right of visitation at sea between the United States and the offending power.

And the committee refrain only from recommending at once such additional legislation as would be most effectual to protect the commerce of the country from aggressions of the character thus brought to the notice of the Senate, from the fact that the President (as shown by the letter of the Secretary of the Navy, accompanying the message) has already ordered all the disposable naval force of the country into the infested quarter, with orders "to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the vessels-of-war of any other nation." These are preventive measures only, and temporary in their character, but, in the judgment of the committee, go to the full extent of the power of the Executive in the absence of legislative provision. It is believed, however, they will arrest for the present further like offences in the quarter whence they have proceeded. It appears further, from these documents, that the altered state of the relations between the United States and Great Britain, which must arise from this aggressive conduct of her armed vessels, has been already brought to the notice of that power, by communications from the Secretary of State, addressed both to the British minister here and to the minister of the United States at London.

It cannot be known, until the result of these communications is laid before Congress, how far the acts in question will be avowed or disclaimed by the government held responsible. It is the earnest

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »