We We resume the sketch of our diplomatic relations with France. have spoken of the injury caused to American commerce by the British Buchanan's second annual message, 1858. For copious extracts from the correspondence of the State Department on this subject, see Wharton's Int. Law Digest, § 327. See also Lawrence on the Right of Visitation and Search, and Wheaton's Inquiry into the Validity of the British claim to the right of Visitation and Search, &c. During Lord Ashburton's visit, Mr. Webster corresponded with him on three other subjects of international interest. Brief reference to them should perhaps here be made : — 1. The case of the steamboat "Caroline” and of McLeod. In December, 1837, during the Canadian rebellion, some of the insurgents used a steamboat called the "Caroline" for hostile acts in Niagara River. Therefore a force of Canadians came over to Schlosser, in the territory of the United States, and seized her and destroyed her. In the capture an American citizen was shot and killed. When inquiry was made by the American government of the British minister at Washington concerning this invasion of its territory in time of peace, he replied that the British government assumed the responsibility for the act, and justified it as an act of self-defence. The American minister at London, in an official note to Lord Palmerston, pronounced the transaction an outrage upon the United States and a violation of United States territory. But the matter rested until November, 1840, when one McLeod, who came from Canada into the State of New York, boasted of having participated in the expedition against the "Caroline," and was arrested by the authorities of New York and charged with murder. The British minister demanded his release. No settlement was reached under Van Buren's administration, which ended March 4, 1841. The British request was promptly renewed to the Harrison administration, with the statement that McLeod's case could not properly be passed on by the state court of New York, but must be treated as an international question. McLeod, after his arrest, was brought before the supreme court of New York by writ of habeas corpus, and his discharge was asked on the ground that, whatever he had done in the expedition against the "Caroline " he had done under orders of his government. The court refused to discharge him. He was tried and acquitted. But the Harrison administration thought that he could not be lawfully held to answer in the courts of New York for his offence, though the President had no power to arrest the proceedings in those courts. The Attorney-General of the United States was sent to attend the trial, and to see that the prisoner had skilful counsel. He was instructed that if the indictment were pending in one of the courts of the United States, the President would direct a nolle prosequi to be entered. The case is reported in Wendell, xxv. 483. A review of the decision by Judge Tallmadge is found in Wendell, xxvi. 663, App. Calhoun, in the Senate, opposed the positions taken by our government, maintaining that the attack on the "Caroline was not justified by necessity, and that persons concerned in the enterprise were responsible to the State of New York (Calhoun's Works, iii. 618). Congress passed an act, August 29, 1842, by which cases like this of McLeod can be reached by the Federal courts (U. S. Revised Statutes, §§ 752754). In Mr. Webster's correspondence with Lord Ashburton, the former maintained that, to justify such an act as the seizure and destruction of the "Caroline," the British government must show "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation," and that in accomplishing their end their agents "did nothing unreasonable or excessive." Ashburton accepted Webster's statement of principles as correct, maintained that the act was performed under such conditions, and expressed regret that explanation and apology for the occurrence was not immediately made." This declaration was accepted by Webster as satisfactory (Webster's Works, vi. 292–303). 2. The case of the "Creole." In 1841 a Virginia planter sailed from Richmond, Va., on the "Creole," with a hundred and twenty-five slaves on board, for New Orleans. While at sea the slaves killed the captain, gained possession of the vessel, and carried her into Nassau. The local authorities arrested nineteen of the slaves, and allowed the rest to go free. We had no extradition treaty with Great Britain. Mr. Webster maintained that the officers of the vessel, which was taken into the British port against their will, should have received all proper assistance in resuming their authority and continuing their voyage, and should have been protected from all interference with the character and condition of persons or things on board. As slavery did not exist in Nassau, the question was raised whether slaves reaching port under the above conditions were made free by coming into British waters. According to Mr. Webster's argument, they were not. Lord Ashburton was not empowered to consider the questions raised by Mr. Webster. The claim for damages in the case of the "Creole" came before the joint commission which sat in London under the convention of 1853. The commissioners being unable to agree, the claim was referred to Joshua Bates as umpire, Orders in Council and the decrees of the Emperor Napoleon in the early years of this century. In 1819, a stable government having been set up in France, the United States began to press for the payment of the claims of their merchants whose vessels and cargoes had been seized unlawfully by the Emperor.1 France, on the other hand, claimed damages for alleged violations of the eighth article of the treaty of 1803. That article provided who sustained the American position, and awarded damages to the claimant (Webster's Works, vi. 303-318; Lawrence's Wheaton, 206, note 70, containing summary of an article by Wheaton in Rev. Etr. et Fr., tom. ix. p. 345. Dana, in note 62, p. 165, of his edition of Wheaton, criticises Bates's findings). 3. Impressment. Lord Ashburton was not prepared to treat on this subject. But Mr. Web ster, in his speech on the Treaty of Washington, * [After a photograph taken 1861, constituting one of a group of the living presidents of Harvard College. He was United States minister in England, 1841-1845. — ED.] that the ships of France should be "treated upon the footing of the most favored nation" in the ports of the Louisiana purchase. By a reciprocal compact, British vessels were admitted into American ports and American vessels into the ports of England on equal terms. British vessels thus. entered Louisiana ports on more favorable terms than the French. It was contended by France that the treaty of 1803 compelled the United States to admit French vessels to those ports on the same terms as the British, and that such a course was not followed. The American government contended that, inasmuch as Great Britain paid a price, and so gave a spécial equivalent for the admission of her vessels to such ports by the admission of American vessels to hers without any discrimination against the United States, the treaty with France was not violated. France could gain the same privilege as the British enjoyed, on the same conditions. M. de Neuville, the French minister at Washington, and John Quincy Adams discussed the question at great length. They reached no agreement on the matter, and made no arrangement for settling claims. But on June 24, 1822, they signed a treaty, which fixed a discriminating duty of twenty francs on each ton of merchandise, the produce of the United States, imported into France in United States vessels, and a discriminating duty of three dollars and seventy-five cents on each ton of merchandise, the produce of France, imported into this country in French vessels.2 At last, by the treaty of July 4, 1831, the question of claims and that of the interpretation of the eighth article of the treaty of 1803 were settled. France agreed to give twenty-five millions of francs in full payment of claims of our citizens; the United States agreed to pay a million and a half of francs to satisfy certain claims of French citizens and of the French government; the duty on French wines imported into the United States was to be reduced; the duty on our long staple cotton imported into France was to be the same as on our short staple cotton; and the French government abandoned its old claims under the eighth article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana.3 Congress promptly passed the acts requisite to carry the treaty into effect. But the French Chamber of Deputies, on April 18, 1834, declined to make the needed appropriations. The President, Andrew Jackson, in his message in the following December, announced that further negotiation on the subject was out of the question. In February, 1836, he directed Mr. Livingston to leave France. After a spirited debate in the House of Representatives, it was voted that the treaty should be maintained, and that preparations should be made for any exigency which might * arise from the difficulties with France. The French minister, Pageot, was recalled from Washington. Diplomatic relations between the two nations were suspended for nearly two years. Early in 1836 the British government tendered its services as mediator. But before its offer had been accepted, the French government undertook the payment of the sum due. The cordial relations of the two nations were thus restored. In 1843 a treaty of extradition was concluded with France, and in 1845 an additional article was added. We now proceed to consider our troubles with Spain, growing out of the purchase of Louisiana and of the attempt to annex Florida. The action of the intendant in forbidding the American use of New Orleans as a port of deposit1 was in April, 1803, disavowed by the king of Spain, who ordered some place of deposit to be offered. But he declined to ratify the treaty of 1802, partly because payment was insisted upon for damages done to American commerce by French cruisers in Spanish waters, and partly because Congress, claiming that the new purchase of Louisiana gave to the United States the territory extending eastward to the Perdido River, had established a customs district which included the port and bay of Mobile. In 1804, Charles Pinckney, minister to Madrid, and Cevallos, the Spanish Secretary of State, discussed the questions at issue with much spirit for months, but reached no result.2 Mr. Monroe was directed to join Pinckney, after ascertaining whether France would not sustain the American claim of territory from the Perdido on the east to the Rio Bravo del Norte on the west. The American negotiators were to press Spain for the recognition of the validity of the American claim, and to offer, not to exceed two millions of dollars for the Floridas, to be applied to payment of the claims of our citizens against Spain. If the whole of East Florida could not be purchased, an effort should be made to purchase as far as the Appalachicola. Talleyrand, speaking for France, sustained the Spanish position that the eastern boundary of the Louisiana purchase was the river Iberville and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain. Spain also maintained that the western boundary was the river Mermentau, which 2 For. Rel. ii. 615-624. The correspondence of Yrujo, the Spanish minister to the United States, and Madison, Secretary of State, was equally fruitless. Ibid. 624-25. Yrujo, having procured the publication in a newspaper in Philadelphia, of an article attacking the administration, and having made himself otherwise offensive, the government of the United States asked for his recall. The Spanish government replied that, as he had already obtained permission to return home at the season suitable for the voyage, they desired the American government to permit his stay until then, and not to insist on a formal recall. This was assented to. But Yrujo VOL. VII.—32 3 showed no intention of leaving the country. At the end of eight months, the Secretary of State, Jan. 15, 1806, wrote to him, informing him that his presence in Washington was dissatisfactory" to the President. He wrote very impudent replies, and refused to go away. Cevallos attempted to defend his extraordinary course. (The history of Yrujo's controversy with our government in respect to his action is well given in the communication of Mr. Erving, ministér to Spain, dated December, 1806, and found in Wharton's International Law Digest, 2d edition, § 106.) 8 The instructions are found, For. Rel. ii. 626 630. 1 is about halfway from New Orleans to the Sabine. Monroe and Pinckney, January 28, 1805, submitted a project of a treaty to Cevallos, providing for determining the boundary of Louisiana, and for the settlement of claims.1 They discussed it at great length with him without any success, and the negotiations were stopped May 18th. Monroe returned to London, and Pinckney remained at Madrid. There was no little friction, during the few years following, in the disputed territory. In 1808, diplomatic relations with Spain were suspended. Owing to turbulence among the inhabitants, the President, by proclamation, in 1810, took possession of the east bank of the Mississippi, to hold it provisionally for the benefit of Spain and of the United States. In 1812, the territory as far as the Pearl River was annexed to the new State of Louisiana, and the territory between the Pearl River and the Perdido was annexed to the Mississippi territory. General Wilkinson seized the fort at Mobile, April 15, 1813; Governor Mathews and Governor Mitchell of Georgia held East Florida for a time with their troops, though Congress refused to sanction their action. General Jackson, in 1818, having heard that Indians were to sally out from Pensacola into Alabama, seized that place, but our government offered to restore it at once. It was obvious that Spain could not long hold the Floridas without much expense and trouble, and without constant danger of most serious difficulties with the United States. As early as 1815, diplomatic relations, which had been suspended for seven years, were resumed. Onis, the Spanish minister at Washington, opened his correspondence with Monroe, Secretary of State, by asking the restoration of West Florida, which was refused.2 They continued discussion on the old lines for more than a year, when Monroe terminated it.3 Pizarro, having in July, 1817, succeeded Cevallos as Spanish Secretary of Foreign Affairs, proposed to our minister, Mr. Erving, to reopen negotiations. His plan was to exchange Florida for the territory west of the Mississippi, bringing the Spanish line eastward to the Mississippi. The Spanish claim on West Florida was to be waived. Erving replied that he was without authority to negotiate, and urged Pizarro to send favorable instructions to Onis. John Quincy Adams and Onis began negotiations in December, 1817. They reargued the boundary question in a very prolix correspondence, but came to no agreement. The offer of mediation by Great Britain was declined by the United States.5 4 In July, 1818, Pizarro took up the subject again with Mr. Erving, and the king of Spain, on the 9th of that month, ratified the convention of 1802. The correspondence between Pizarro and Erving consisted chiefly in a debate upon the meaning of an offer made by Pinckney in 1803, to guarantee to Spain her dominions beyond the Mississippi. And this, too, like 1 For. Rel. ii. 638. 2 Ibid. iv. 422. 8 Ibid. 422-441. ♦ Ibid. 450 et seq. 5 J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, iv. 48-51. Great Britain having taken the part of Spain on some of the points in controversy, her services were not desired by us. |