Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1841-06-10
1ntcTcstis,g Correspondence

Is Nhe correspondence between VT L OK
and Mr.. Webster - the former demanding
~ The name of the British Government,
the immediate release Of Mcleod, and
\ the answer ofih, Secretary of State. Ii
Will be read with scarcely less interest
now that the ieverish excitement which
has hitherto existed has given place Ia
Il calm and more intelligent view Of the
subject. The following abridsment en-
braces all the material points.
|. Tho British Minister'S letter dated
March -, states that his NOV vemenis in
the premises have been fully approved
by his government, and repeats the oft
repeated argument that Mel cod can.
not be held personally responsible for
The acts of his Government.
| Her Majesty's Government (says Mr..
FoS) cannot admit. for moment the
validity of the doctrine advanced by MIR.
| Forsyth, that The Federal Government
fof the United States has no power to
interfere in the matter in question, and
that The decision thereof must rest solely
and entirely with the State of New York
n With the particulars of the internal
compact which may exist between seye.
raj States that compose the Union, for
eign powers have nothing TO do : the
relations Of foreign powers are with the
aggregate Union that Union is TO them
represented by the Federal Government; !;
and of tina, Union the Federal Govern
ment is to them the only organ. There
fore, when foreign power has redress
to demand for wrong done to it by any
Stale Of the Union, it is to the Federal
| Government, and not To the separate
State, that such power must look for re-
dress for that wrong. And such foreign
power cannot admit the plea that the
separate State is an independent body
over which the Federal Government has
no control
1t is obvious that such a doctrine, if
admitted, would a, once 60 to dissolu-
tion Of the Union as far as its relations
with foreign powers are concerned and
that fore IN powers in such case, instead
of accrediing diplomatic agents to the
Federal Government, would send such
agents not to that Government, but to
the government Of each separate State :;
and would make their relations Of peace
and war with each State depend upon
the result Of their separate intercourse
with such State, without reference to the
relations they might have with The rest.
Her MaJesty's Government formally
demands through its Minister, the re-
lease Of Mcleod. The Minister then
proceeds to say that there are the strong
est reasons to believe that Nc Ieod was
not concerned in that affair and that
though the circumstance makes no dif- |
ference IN the political and international
question ut issue, the Government of the
United States must not Disguise from
themselves that the fact that Mr. Mcleod |
was not engaged in the transaction mus,
necessarily tend greatly to inname that
national resentment which any harm that |
shall be suffered by MIR. Mcleod at the
hands Of The authorities Of the State ol
New York will inialliblv excite through
out the whole Of the British Empire.
In Mr.. Webs,er's reply, dated April
"a, after recaptulating the contents of
Mr.. Fox's letter, he says that the Presi-
dent is not certain that he understands
precisely the meaning Intended by Her
MaJes'y's Government TO be conveyed
by the foregoing instruction
This doubt has occasioncd with the
President some hesitation, but he inc lines
to take II for granted that the main pur-
pose OF instruction was to cause it TO be
signifcd To the Government Oft United
States that the attack on the steamboat
"CarolIne" was an act Of public force,
done by the British colonial authorities,
and finally recognized by tho Queens
Government at home, and that conse-
quenily no individual concerned in that
transaction can, according 10 the JUS,
principles of the law Of nations, be held
personally answerable in the ordinary
courts OF law as for n private offence
and that upon this avowa of Her NIaies-
iy's Government, Alexander Mcleod,
now imprisoned on an indictment for
murder alleged to have been committed
IN that attack, ought to be released by
such proceedings as are usual and are
suitable TO the case.
Mr.. Webster next proceeds to saw, in
substance, that persons held in the United
States under Judicial process, can, as in
England, only be released by judicial
process-by nolle pros que, on exam-
nation Of the charge under a writ of
habeas corpus. The Secretary does not
suppose that in England the Executive
could interfere in any more direct man
ner Alter aluding to the civil suit
Withdrawn since the date Of this letter, \
the Secretary proceeds to say, "Ifthere. |
fore, any course different from such a.
have been now mentioned was in con- |
temptation of Her Malesty's Govern
mcn', something would seem to have 4
been expected from the Governmen, olI
the United States as little confornabIe To-
the laws and usages Of the English Go.
vernment "a 10 those of The United States.
ard TO which this Government canno, |
acccde."
The Government or the United States