Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-01-30

tents and purposes at an end, Mai. Youn.
engaged, Tough. and defeated "a large DO
dy The enemy on the Escambia, i'm III,
ncighborhood of Pensacola How, then
Is II, that we hear that the war was 10 al
infenfs aud purposes AT AN end
| am willing 10 admit, for argument
SIR, tina, 1t Ambrister and Arbuthnot wer,
! acting under orders or authority from
/ the British government, and Jackson knew
4, n, he should have retained and treated
them as British prisoners at war. But, is
II fair TO presume this! With Great Bri-
tam we were at peace; and tho Nichols
had made a treaty, offensive and defensive.
| with his Britannia Majesty, there is no
evidence thai il ever Was ratified. When
>ichoiis weut 10 England. with his pro-
/ pbet and his treaty, The American minis
ter there protested so Earl Bathurst "a
gainsi The proceedings OF his ncendia-
ry. Earl Bathurst discovered the whole
transaction, and stated that the treaty
~ouid not be ratified, nor Nichols adj
! United To an audience. The same dsa-
vowai VAS repeated by Lord Castlercagh,
on his return from the continent. re-
gref, however, thar circumstances exist
TO authorized suspicion OF the insincerity
oil the British government. Aliho' our
minister IN London pressed both of the
above gentlemen repeatedly, by several
Official notes, vel he never was able TO
eNtort disavomal in i0riting. The same
caution, II is understood, has been mani
tested by The agents OF his majesiy'S go-
vernmeut here.
There are other circumstances which
go ie throw a mystery over the conduct
OF the British court III regard 10 these
Indians. Papers were fonnd with Ar
buthnot, which might tend to increase
the suspicious. His letter 10 Nichols OF
ti,e 10Th August, 1877, informing him that
Governor Cameron, of New Providence,
bad shown him a letter from Bathurst,
stating that the British minister at Wash
InSton had orders 10 watch over The in
terests OF these lndians-ihe conduct of
Cameron IN the atiar-his unsigned an
Swer, referred To al the close of Ibis letter
and the respectful notice taken of the
prophet Francis while in England--all
go 10 create suspicion, that The hand
al The government is IN this thing. Bnt
as The British government have uer6afiy
disarowed all concern in the affair, sure
iy Gen. jackson could not presume any
thing III tavorof these men, by suspect
ing the integrity of their government.
The justice of their execution cannot,
In my mind, admit of doubt They
were volunteers in The service of a lawless
tribe OF savages, whose mode of warfare
is an lndiscrlminate massacre ofall ages d
sexes. 1t is right, it is mercifnl TO inflict
on these savages those cruelties which
they practise and inculcate. In this,
however, it is proper to select the most
alroclous and vindictive. To spare the
effusion of the blood even of savages, and
to effect that security which arises from
eminent examples, ii is prudent and wise
to select those men az objects of retalia-
ton and punishment, who are the most
active and successful in practising and
,nflciing cruelties. Who, then, could
have been selected as examples. with
more justice and policy, than these two
foreigners, who had been taught i'm the
school of humanity, and understood the
dlstresSes which their conduct would i'll
fici The general had right 10 ex-
ecule them without trial. This right is
an executive right, and rests in the COM
manding general. A trial by court mar
tlal, strictly SPEAKING, in my mind, was H.
legal. As the general had power TO ex-
ecute them without trial, there could be
no good reason 10 Try these men, which
would not apply to the chiefs who were
hung Without trial, except the necessity
OF ascertaining whether they were in fact
concerned IN provoking and prosecuting
hostilties. All that Jackson could have
legally done, would have been to appoint
6oard Of officers TO ascertain this fact
All the authority which he delegated 10
Them, therefore, beyond that, was illegal !;
and II was his duty to annul it, and pass
the Judgment aud sentence which the
facts justify. The most, then, that can
be commended, is, that this was wrong
mode OF doing = right act. And though
am moi an advocate for the principle,
ihdi Tie end justities the means, vet, in
this case, see nothing so erroneous i'll
me means, as to mpeach the character
of The end. The truth was found by the
court martial, and upon this it was his
duty 10 decide. He did decide, and
trust correctly. | will not tire the pa
ticnce of this committee by particular
statement of the evidence against these
men. Ambrlster was taken in arms, and
HE proofs against him are abundant, that
he was actively engaged in provoking and
prosecuting This war and that he en-
forced the precept of his master, Nichols,
TO regard the affections and antipathieS of
the indians. ArbuthnOt was moi only the
exeter, but supporter Off The war. Throw
ing OFT the treaty OF Fort jackson, of 9Th
August, 1914, he keeps up the pre;epce,
that these Indians were not bound by If,
but we're relieved by the 9th article Of The
British treaty. He is the successor of
Nichols. He calls for succors from the
British government. He is the associate
and conidant of the commandanf Of 81.
Marks. He furnishes the indians with
the weapons Of destruction.
Sir, an awfal responsibility rests upon
this house. Upon their decision rests the
safety of thousands. hope and trust
that The period has arrived, when the u
Ditpd States shall have adopted a ruJe of