The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-09 00:00:00

'THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 9, 1860.

.1111PRICAN DEBP,I7TIII ON THE SLA J/IE

TRADE.

The subjoined despatch, addressed by Secretary
Cass to Mr. Dallas, the American Envoy at the
Court of St. James's, is one of the documents called
for by Mr. Sumner's recent resolution, and just
submitted to the Senate :

MR. CASS TO MR. DALLAS.

Department of State, Washington,
Feb. 23, 1859.
Sir,--Your letters of Dec. 16 and 24 last past,
and the note of Lord Malmesbury to you dated the
14th of the same month, and which was transmitted
in your letter of the 14th, and also your acknow-
ledgment of the receipt of the letter, have been some
time before the department ; but the difficulty of
procuring the necessary information upon some of
the subjects referred to has prevente&me from
communicating to you the views of the Government
at an earlier day.
In your note to Lord Malmesbury, of December
19, you have done justice to the desire and the
efforts of the United States for the abolition of the
slave trade, and also to the regret which the abuse
of the American flag for the purpose of that traffic
has occasioned to the Government. The extent to
which this reprehensible practice is carried 1 have
not the means of ascertaining, nor how many of the
vessels named in the list transmitted by Commodore
Wise to the British Admiralty were actually
engaged in the slave trade, or were bona fide
American. As I remarked, heretofore, to Lord
Napier, there is just ground to believe that nearly,
if not quite all the vessels bearing the American flag
and engaged in this trade, belong to foreigners;
and Commodore, Wise, in his account of the capture
of the Rufus Soule, discloses the measures which
may sometimes be resorted to in order to enable a
vessel to maintain a national character to which she
has ceased to have any just claim. That officer
also states that under the American " ensign "
alone is the slave trade now conducted. It is
difficult to reconcile this opinion with some of the
facts he communicates, or, at any rate, with the
charge that the flag of the United States is an im-
munity for the slave-trader, for he reports the
capture of 33 vessels which either did not bear the
American flag or were not protected by it from
seizure; and of 23 other vessels which escaped
capture it does not appear that more than 11 of
them were ascertained to have sailed under the
flag of this country.
But, however this may be, the United States are
not subject to censure under any circumstances,
unless they are justly chargeable with neglect of

duty in not adopting such measures as their posi-
tion fairly requires of them. But they fear no such
accusation. They have made the slave trade a
capital offence, and they assign no inconsiderable
portion of their navy to the duty to its suppression.
The great slave mart of the world is the island of
Cuba, and if this were closed this traffic would at
once be annihilated. The authority of Spain is
firmly established in that island, and her military
force there is quite sufficient to ensure the accom-
plishment of any measure of domestic policy decreed
and seriously desired by the Spanish Government.
It is known that Spain has, by a convention with
Great Britain, and for a pecuniary consideration,
placed herself under obligation to prevent the intro-
duction of slaves into her American possessions. If
this stipulation were fulfilled, the desired object
would be peaceably attained, and all those dange-
rous questions avoided which are sure to present
themselves whenever the freedom of the seas is in-
terfered with, whatever motive may be assigned
for their proceeding. The United States have en-
gaged by the Ashburton treaty " to unite with
Great Britain in all becoming representations and
remonstrances with anyand all powers within whose
dominions such (slave) markets are allowed to exist,
and that they will urge upon all such powers the
propriety and duty of closing such markets effectu-
ally at once and for ever." Lord Napier inquired,
a few. days since, whether this Government
were now willing to give effect to this stipula-
tion by making the necessary represen-
tations and remonstrances to the Govern-
ment of Spaiu. I assured his lordship that there
would be no hesitation in performing this duty
whenever there may be reason to believe that the
expression of their views by the United States
would produce any favourable effect upon the
action of the Spanish Government, but that the re-
lations of Spain and Great Britain, and especially
the conventional stipulations between them, would
give to the intervention of the latter much more
probability of success than could be anticipated
from the representation of the United States. In I
fact, it is difficult to believe that, under existing
circumstances, the Spanish Government would
resist the firm remonstrances of the Government of
Great Britain.

I see no reason why the flag of the United States
should be the only" ensign" of national sovereignty
prostituted by slave dealers, and certainly; as I
have already observed, there is 'none which can be
justly urged as a reproach against this Government.
The position taken by the United States respect-
ing the immunity of their vessels upon the ocean is
precisely that assumed by France, and both nations
equally deny the claim of visitation, and equally
object to its exercise. A slave trade adventurer
carrying the French colours is no more subject to
examination by a British cruiser than if he hoisted
the colours of the United States, and in neither
case is it the assumption of the flag which confers
the immunity, but the legal character of the vessel,
agreeably to the principle stated in my letter to
Lord Napier, of April 10, 1858, and which was laid
down by Mr. Webster, by order of the President of
the United States, in a letter to Mr. Everett, then
Minister in London, dated March 28, 1843.

Lord Malmesbury, while referring to the report
of Commodore Wise, depicting the horrors of the
slave trade, considers the circumstances of so fla-
grant a nature as to be " calculated to move the
most prejudicial feelings in regard to the question
of the right of visit, and to urge the most decided
measures for the suppression of proceedings which
must be held to be equivalent to the grossest acts
of piracy."

As to the suffering and loss of life referred to,
they are everywhere known and condemned. The
horrors of the passage can scarcely be described in
more powerful language than has already been em-
ployed in making them known to the world. But
the question of effectual representation presents
grave practical difficulties, and in their considera-
tion it is not alone the nature of the traffic, but
there are other important circumstances also which
must be taken into view. •

I do not understand precisely the bearing of the
remark of Lord Malmesbury that these revolting
cruelties are calculated to move the most prejudiced
feelings in regard to the question of the right of
visit, &e. There is no right of visit except, as Lord
Stowell said, from the belligerent claim. The
forcible visitation 'of vessels upon the ocean is
prohibited by the law of nations in time of peace,
and this exemption from foreign jurisdiction is now
recognised by Great Britain, and, it is believed,
by all other commercial powers. Even if the ex-
ercise of a right of visit were essential to the
suppression of the slave trade, whether such a right
should be conceded by one nation to its co-states of
the world, is a question for its own consideration, in-
volving very serious consequences, but which is little
likely to encounter any prejudiced feelings in favour
of the slave trade in its solution, nor to be influenced
by them. But there is just reason to believe that
the value of a right of visitation, as a means of put-
ting an end to this traffic, has been greatly over-
rated. The objeet of such visitation is to ascertain
the national character of a vessel. If found to be-
long to the same nation as the cruiser making the
visit, and violating its laws, she may be seized. If
belonging to another nation, she must be released,

in whatever employment she may be engaged,
unless, indeed, she may become a pirate, in which
case she is liable to be captured by the naval force
of any civilised power. If the United States main-
tained that by carrying their flag at her mast-head
any vessel becomes thereby entitled to the immunity
which belongs to American vessels, they might well
be reproached with assuming a position which would
go far towards shielding crimes upon the ocean from
punishment. But they advance no such pretension,
while they concede that if, in the honest examina-
tion of a vessel sailing under American colours, but
accompanied by strongly marked suspicious circum-
stances, a mistake is made, and she is found to be
entitled to the flag she bears, but no injury is com-
mitted, and the conduct of the boarding party is
irreproachable, no government would be likely to
make a case thus exceptional in its character a sub-
ject of serious reclamation.
The security against the abuse of any such
power is to be found in the responsibility of
the nation whose naval force commits an unlaw-
ful act, and in the right of the injured party to
adopt such measures of redress as it may consider
due to the nature of the injury. But, to reverse the
relation of the parties, and to confer upon the ag-
gressor the right to decide when he may exercise
this armed and summary jurisdiction, is improvi-
dently to prostrate one of the barriers of national
defence wisely constructed by the public law of the
world. Whatever guards might be provided by
conventional stipulations against - the arbitrary
exercise of such an authority, from its very nature,
and the circumstances attending its exercise, strength
and weakness being brought into contact, and upon
every part of the ocean, " these detentions," in the
words of Mr. Webster, " necessarily lead to serious
inconvenience and injury." " Besides the pecuniary
loss they occasion," he adds with truth, " they too
frequently irritate individuals, cause warm blood,
and produce nothing but ill effects on the amicable
relations existing between the countries." This
Government chooses to reserve the power of judg-
ment to itself, disposed at the same time to deal
fairly with such mistakes as may honestly occur,
but not disposed to convert trespasses into legal
acts by previous conventional arrangements.
Lord Malmesbury expresses the conviction of the
British Government that, equally with themselves,
the Government of the United States will view
with horror the prostitution of the American flag
to the purposes of the slave trade. The admission
is but an act of justice, though certainly there is
nothing in the principles or position we have main-
tained which called for its formal communication.
This country was the first among the nations of
the world to make the prosecution of the slave
trade by its citizens a capital offence, and their re-
pugnance to it has ever since been constant, and
constantly avowed. Certainly the Government,
though it is satisfied that the extent to which the
employment of bone fine American vessels in this
trade has been carried has been greatly overrated,
has seen the abuse of its flag with as much aversion
as this crime has inspired in Great Britain, and it is
well persuaded that the British Government has
viewed with as much aversion as the Government
of this country the similar abuse which is hereto-
fore taken place of the British flag. Both of these
nations—all civilised nations indeed—are under
serious obligations to provide for the suppression
of crimes within their jurisdiction, whether upon
the land or the water. But even the sternest legis-
lation and the most vigorous administration cannot
always prevent the commission of crimes, nor in-
sure their punishment, and a nation fully meets its
responsibility when it fairly adapts its measures to
the circumstances in which it is placed, and of these
it must necessarily be the judge.
Lord Malmesbury assures you that the British
Government believe " that the Government of the
United States will be prepared to vindicate the
honour of its flag by repudiating acts calculated to
lower it in the estimation of civilised nations, and
by taking effectual steps to prevent its being abused
by traffickers in human flesh."
His lordship will not find himself in error in
the expectation that all the duties of the United
States connected with this grave subject will
be fulfilled, nor in the hope he expresses that the
spirit of his communication will not be misunder-
stood. But, while giving these assurances, it is
due to the earnest representation he addresses on
the part of his Government to the Government of
the United States to assure him also that there is
nothing, either in the course of this Government
nor in the abuse of its flag, which calls for this em-
phatic reference to its duties, and this expression
of the hope that these will be performed. There
are high moral considerations which have induced
the United States to prohibit their citizens from
engaging in this employment. Violations of their
laws upon this subject no doubt occasionally take
place, as violations of the criminal laws of all
countries occur from time to time. I presume it
will not be denied that this is a misfortune to
which Great Britain is also sometimes exposed both
upon land and water. But the vindication of her
honour requires no act of repudiation on her part
when such breaches of her laws take place. Nor
does the abuse of the flag of the United States for
the unworthy purpose make this Government re-
sponsible, unless indeed it fails to perform its proper
duties. This it has not done. It has repu-
diated these acts in the most solemn manner, by
declaring them criminal and punishable with
death, and it has not the least apprehension that
its honour will suffer in the estimation of civilised
nations in consequence of the unlawful prosecution
of the slave trade by its citizens or by foreigners
seeking the protection of its flag. The measures
of repression which it has adopted, and which it is
prepared to render still more efficient, offer satis-
factory proof of its sincerity to all who are disposed
to regard its position in a sprit of justice. And if
it decline to confer upon another nation the police
over its vessels upon the ocean, it is from no
sympathy with this commerce, nor from any desire
that its citizens should pursue it, but from its con-
viction that the freedom of the seas is essential to
the best interests of the world, and that its main-
such concession.
the Government
Atehndanlcehaivseiin.ecaosmonpattoibbleelisevvitehthanaty
of France, in its general views of this subject, agrees
substantially with the Government of the United
States.

With a view to stimulate the action of this Go-
vernment, Lord 'Alalmesbury observes that " the
United States have maintained that they are able
and determined to preserve the police of the seas
in so far as the American flag is concerned, and
that, by the treaty of August 9, 1812, with Great
Britain, they have engaged to maintain a force on
the coast of Africa to control proceedings such as
those which form the subject of this note."
I do not know to what particular declaration,
made on the part of this country, regarding the
police of its vessels upon the ocean, Lord Malmes-
bury refers in the above quotation. But I have no
hestitation in admitting that it expresses the views
of the United States, and it is presumed that it ex-
presses also the views of all other commercial
powers.

By the law of nations every independent state
possesses the exclusive right of police over all per-
sons within its jurisdiction, whether upon its soil
or in its vessels upon the ocean. And this national
prerogative can only be interfered with in cases
where acts of piracy are committed, which, by the
public law of the world, are cognisable by any power
seizing the vessel thus, excluded from the common
rights of the ocean. Lord Malmesburv, indeed, re-
marks that these slave trade proceedings " must be
held to be equivalent to the grossest acts of piracy."
But reprehsnsiblo as is that traffic it is not
piracy, nor is it equivalent to piracy in any of the
legal consequences which result from it. It is an
offence created by national not by international
law, and is punishable only by the country to which

the offenders are responsible. The United State
have, indeed, by statutory provision, declared it
piracy, but that is a domestic regulation, merely
adopted for the purposes of its own criminal jus
tice, but which gives no jurisdiction to any foreign
power.

The police over their own vessels being a right
inherent in all independent States, each of them is
responsible to the public opinion of the world for
its faithful preservation, as it is responsible for the
execution of any other duty. The measures it will
adopt must depend upon its own judgment; and
whether these are efficient or inefficient, no other
nation has a right of interference. And the same
principles are applicable to territorial jarisdiction.
Good laws it is the duty of every Government to
provide, and also to make suitable provisions for
their just administration. But because offenders
sometimes escape, nations are not therefore dis-
posed to admit any participation in the execution
of these laws, even though such a measure might
insure their more faithful execution. Com-
modore Wise looks to a convenient arrange--
ment between Great Britain and the United
States, by which British cruisers may be per-
mitted to capture American vessels, with a
view to their surrender to the American naval
forces, as the most effectual means of sup-
pressing the slave trade. I believe the object may
be certainly attained without the adoption of this
professional suggestion. If not, I should have no
hope of its accomplishment. The surrender of a
right of police over its vessels to the armed cruisers
of a great maritime power is a measure which this
country would sternly reject under all circumstances
even at the hazard of being accused of refusing to
co-operate in the effort to annihilate this employ-
ment. Such a system of foreign interference might
indeed, sometimes be usefully exercised upon the
ocean in the detection and punishment of crime,
but the additional security thus gained would be
dearly purchased by the sacrifice of an important
element of national independence; and in its prac-
tical operation an immense navy could exercise no
such authority over the commercial marine of other
powers without the commission of aggressions which
could not fail to lead to dangerous consequences.
Nor would such a proposition be rendered more
acceptable by the suggestion made by Commodore
Wise, that the transatlantic slave-dealers will make
vigorous efforts during the coming season, and "if
they extend their enterprise to the Bights of Benin
and Biafra, farewell to the remunerative and rapidly
increasing trade which is now carried on on that
coast." Whether the object be commercial or phi-
lanthropic, the United States would still be opposed
to the exercise of a foreign jurisdiction over their
vessels.
The report of Commodore Wise, which contains
this expression of apprehension, contains also va-
rious statements respecting the operations upon
the coast of Africa ; but the information in the
possession of this department is not sufficient
to enable me to form a judgment of their correct-
ness. In some important particulars they are at
variance with the reports received from officers of
our African squadron, and I shall therefore request
the Secretary of the Navy to furnish me with copies
of so much of them as relate to these point-, and
shall transmit them to you that you may invite the
attention of the Earl of Malmesbury to the subject,
with a view to the adoption of such measures as
will remove all fear of difficulties hereafter. There
is one statement, however, of Commodore Wise,
which calls for immediate consideration. That
officer says that " last year slaves were (in the ma-
jority of cases) captured through their captains
foregoing the protection of the American flag, but
now American slavers are arriving and sailing with
almost as much impunity as if they were engaged
in legal traffic." That vessels employed in this
traffic too often escape there can be no doubt, but
that they pursue it with as little risk as is here in-
dicated is an obvious error.
Such a denunciation is irreconcileable with the
presence of a squadron of repression upon the coast,
unless indeed its duties are flagrantly neglected,
and its officers regardless of what they owe to
themselves and their country. It would be a work
of supererogation to defend them from such an
accusation. Their best defence is to be found in
the glory of that navy which they have so success-
fully laboured to build up, and in the high estima-
tion in which they are held by their countrymen.
As to the charge of " foregoing the protection of
the American flag," I presume Commodore Wise
refers to the practice of which I complained in my
letter to Lord Napier of April 10, 1858, by which
the masters of vessels furnished with American
papers were induced by the representations of
British boarding officers to throw their papers over-
board. Why they should do so without being
influenced by threats, or by the hope of escaping
impending punishment, it is difficult, impossible
indeed, to conceive. If a vessel has regular Ameri-
can papers, she is beyond the reach of a British
cruiser, which, in the language of Commodore Wise,
" has no legal right to molest them (her) in any
way." What advantage, then, does she gain by
the loss of her papers, whose destruction at once
subjects her to capture and to the disposition of the
British naval authorities ? If taken by an American
cruiser the persons found on board such vessel
engaged in the slave trade are liable to the punish-
ment of death, while if they voluntarily subjected
themselves, by the destruction of their papers, to
be arrested by the British naval forces, it is under-
stood to have been the practice to land them upon
the nearest part of the coast, where they were left
free, while the captors were entitled to prize money
for the vessel and her living cargo. The nature of
the inducement held out for this surrender, heretofore
referred to in my letter to Lord Napier of April last,
is indicated by the answer of Commodore Wise to
the inquiry of Lieut. Davidson, of the American
navy, who had asked the Commodore whether,
in the event of his meeting an American slaver,
under American colours, and bearing genuine
payers, he would use means to induce the cap-
tain to throw his colours and papers overboard.
To which he replied, " Well, I might strain a
point, and tell the captain the Dale was just at
hand." The Dale is an American vessel of war, and
capture by her would subject the offenders to the
extreme punishment provided by the laws of the
United States. By such proceedings, it is not
American protection which is foregone, to use the
expression of Commodore Wise, but American
justice which is defeated. Commodore Wise seems
to be under the impression that this reprehensible
practice is now abandoned.

The information received from our American
squadron justifies a different conclusion ; and, in-
deed, the circumstances attending the capture of
the Rufus Soule in October last, as reported to the
Navy Department, lead to the opinion that some
such means are yet resorted to, and with th© same
protection of the criminals against punishment ; for
the crew of that vessel were landed upon that coast
and suffered to depart.

The facts connected with the capture and burn-
ing of the vessel are very differently represented by
the American 'and British officers. The proceedings
were attended with circumstances so very repre-
hensible, if nit clearly justified by the situation of
the vessel, that I desire, when the reports from the
Navy Department reach you, that you request an
immediate investigation of the transaction, and the
adoption of such measures of redress and prevention
as the state of the case may call for.
The tenor of some of the remarks in the despatch
of Lord Malmesbury rendered it proper to advert
somewhat in detail to the views he has presented.
That course became necessary in order to redeem the
United States from any misapprehension under which
his lordship might labour; that their indisposition
to admit any other nation to a participation in the
jurisdiction either preventive or punitive, over their
commerce or navigation, originated in any syra-