Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-27

duty OF examining suspected vessels, would ne.
cessariiy actunder instructions calculated to en-.
sure perfect harmony between the principle
and the application OF this conceded right; nor
Is II 10 be feared that they would presume, in
any case, to extend the visit thus author ized a,
sea, ncyonu the particular and specified object
TO which 1T is meant to be confined
have the honor to request, sir. that Won will
again accept the assurance of my highest con
sideration.
STRATFORD CANNING
iion.sJ. g. ADAMS, Sec. State, &c.
M. .Ida,ns to mfr. Canning
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
JPashington, Cath June, 1928.
Sra Iu the letter which / had the honor Of
addressing you, on the 3lst of aIarch last, a prc
posa was made to be submitted 10 the cousidera.
tlon oil your Government, that the p;incipie as
sumed IN an act of the Congress OF the United
States, Of The Is tn May 1920, OF CONSIDERING and
Furnishing the African slave trade az piracv.
should be aaopi6,. Is the basis Of stipulation
by treaty between the United States and Great
Britain and to be urged separately upon the
adoption of France, and upon the other mari
time nations of Europe, in the manner most
conducive TO its ultimate success. 1t was OBJ
served that this offer was presented as a subs
e:te Tor that of Conceding mutual right of
search, and Il trial by mixed commissions, TO
which the United States could not be reconciled
and which would be rendered useless by it.
Your letter of the 9Th of April, to which /
have now the honor to reply, intmates that
his Majcsty's Government will be disposed to
receive this offer only as an acknowledgment
that measures mere efficient than any now &C.
nerally IN force, are indispensable for the SUM-
preston of the slave trade; and that, although
they have never opposed the consideration of
any other plan, brought forward as equally cf.
iectire, yet, having formed the first, regarded
4 mutual limited concession of the right of
search, rs the only true and practical cure for
the evil, their prevailing sentiment will be of
regret at the unfavorablc view still taken of it
by the Government of The United States Your
letter, therefore, urges reconsideration of the
proposal for tins mutual concession of the right
OF search, and by presenting important modili-
cations of the proposal heretofore made, re-
moves some of the objections which had been
taken to it, as insuperabe, while it offers argu-
| mcntatve answers, to the others which had been
disclosed In my previous communications on
| this subject to you.
| In the treaties of Great Britain with Spain
Portugal, and the netherlands, for the suppress
| sian of the slave trade, heretofore communicated.
with the invitation TO the United States to en-
ter into similar engagements, three principles
were involved, 10 neither of which the Govern.
|
accede. The first was the mutual concession
Of the right of search and capture, in time OF
peace, over merchant vessels, on the coast OF
| Africa. The second was, the exercise of that
right even over vessels under conroy of the pub
lie officers, of their own nation: and the third
was the trial of the captured vessels by mixed
commissions in colonial settlements, under no
subordination to the ordinary judicial tribunals
OF the country to which The party brought be-
fore them for trial should belong. In the
course ofthe correspondence relating to these
proposals, 1t has been suggested that substi-
tute for the trial by mixed commissions might
oc agreed to; and, - Jour letter of the 9th of
April, az expectation is authorised that an ar
ra'gement for the adjudication ofthe vessels de-
tanned, might leave them to be disposed ofin the
ordinary way, by the sentcuce of Court of
Admiralty IN the country Of the captor, or place
them under the Jurisdiction of similar court
in the country to which they belonged; to the
former alternative, Of which YOU anticipate the
unhesitatinS admission of the United Ssates,
IN consideration fthe aggravated nature of the
crime, as acknowledged by their laws, which
would be thus submitted to q forcign iurisdic-
ton. But il was precisely because the jurisdic-
ton was foreign that the objection was taken
to the trial by mixed commissions; and if if
transcribed the constitutional authority of the
GoveTnir,e'';; tue United States, to subject
The persons, property, and reputation, of their
citizens, to the decisions of court partly COM
posed OF their own countrymen, ii might seem
needless 10 remark, that the constitutional OBJ
lection could not diminish, in proportion as its
cause should increase, or that the power incom-
pc tent 10 make American citizens a1nenable to
court consisting one-half Of foreigners, should
be adequate to place their liberty, their fortune,
and their fame ; at the disposal of tribunals en-
tirely foreign. Iwould further remark, that
the sentence of Court of Admiralty in the
country ofthe captor, is not the ordinary toay
by which the merchant vessels of one nation
taken on the high seas, by the officers of aDo-
tlIcr, are tried in time of peace. There is, in
the ordinary way, no right whatever existing,
to take; or search, or even to board them; and
| take this occasion to express the great
satisfaction with which we have seen this
principle solcrnny recognized by the re-
cent decision Of British Court of Admiralty.
Nor is the aggravaiOn Of the crime for the trial
Of which tribunal may be instituted, a c0gent
motive for asserting to the principle Of subject
ing American citizens, their right, and interests
to the decision of foreign courts: for, although
Great Britain, as you remarks may be willing
TO abandon those of her subjects, who defy the
laws and tarnish the character of their country,
by participating in this trade, to the dispersal
ton Of justice even by foreign hands, the United
States arc bound TO remember that the power
which enables court TO try the guilty, author
Ives them also 60 pronounce upon the fate of the
innocent; and that the very question of gull or
innocence is that which the protecting care Of
their constitution has reserved for the citizens
Of this Union, to the exclusive decision Of their
own countrymca. This principle has not been
departed from By the statute which has branded
~r,I nd ,.ur