Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1841-07-02
UUB PRRSS
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
THE CASE OF Mcleod.
Thursday, June 10, lS4l'


the Presidents Message to our Foreign Az
fairs to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
and Mr.. Buchanan having concluded his re-
marks on the subject, as published In yester-
days paper
Mr.. Rives rose in reply, and commenced by
observing that, as member OF the Committee
OIL Foreign Relations, it was fit and necessary
that he should offer some remarks on the SUBJ
ject which had thus been urged upon the notice
Of the Senate. Nothing could present more
striking example of the tendency of all sub
jects discussed in our public bodies to assume a
party character than the remarks of the honora-
bic Senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Buchan-
aD,) which had just been submitted to the Sem
ate. The gentlemen had commenced by dis
claimer--most honestly uttered, Mr. Rives had
no doubt--of the influence Of any thing like par
" feeling in what he should say-and yet he had
hardly entered upon the threshold of his subject
when the habitual and unconscious bias of a
party man, as the Senator frankly avowed him
self to be, exhibited itself in manner uncquiv-
ocal to be mistaken.
All who have had occasion TO treat, in our lc-
gislativo halls, questions such as that now pre-
scented to the notice of the Senate, must have
felt how difficult it often is to reconcile the i'm
puIScb VI all iiIHcTICdU spTll Will tuC IHcdSuIC
and reserve which might seem to be due to the
natural susceptibilites of Foreign Powers. In
tho view taken by the honorable gentleman of
the a,grcved character of the outrage perpetra-
ted in the destruction Of the "Caronc," Mr..
Rives said, he heartily concurred The gentle
man had not uttered word in reprobation of
that transaction to which his heart and his judg-
ment did not respond. But tho very terms IN
which the senator denounced and characterized
the aggression made it a national wrong, to be
rclresscd by national means, and not to be
avenged by visiting the responsibilities of this
public offence on the head Of such an instrument
"A Alexander Mcleod, if indeed, he were at all
All actor ii The scene, u there is every reason to
believe he was not
Mr.. Rivcs said he should cnleavor, in the
outset, to recall the discussion to ia true mcr-
its--to the questions of international law, which
the senator from Pennsylvania had ad,erted 10
only in the close of his remarks. He should
place it in the FORE ground of the argument, be-
cause by it only, can the conduct of the Admin
is,raton, in the particular in which it is now inn
pugned, be fairly tried and judged. lie would
not go back TO re-capitu ate the history of the
controversy respecting the destruction of the
Caroline, further than to show tho new position
which the question assumed Immediately upon
the accession of tho present Administration
to power.
This understandable outrage, involving yio-
laton OF tho national sovereignty over our ter.
rtory, well as tho destruction of the lives and
property of American citizens, was committed
in December, 1887, and aroused general feel
ing of Indignation throughout the Cnion Our
minister at London, under the distractions Of
tho Government here, addressed, in May 1888,
representation to the British Government on
oct TO ot,t att i IL
proral Of tho act, and also such redress as the
nature Of the case required" Notwithstand.
ing the enormi:y OF the outrage, as painted in
this very communication Of orr minister in Lon.
don drawn up in conformity to instructions from
Washington, tho senator's political friends in
whom he thinks there was TO nam of energy in
prosecuting the demand Tor redress, actually
sler. over this national injury from May, 1888, to
MRrcn, lS4l, VIXEN they went out of power -
And 20 profound was their slumber that, in a
late debate in the House of Commons, the Bril-
tish Secretary Of State for Colonial Affairs
(Lord John Russell,) stated that the complaint
Of the American Government was, for a long
period considered as dropped 1t is true that
Mr.. Stevenson, who could not but feel the awk-
ward contrast between the lofty tone of his COM
muncation to Lord Palmerston in May, 1885,
and the patient acquiescence which followed in
the long continued silence of the British Govern
ment, did, in July, 1880, writo to Mr.. Forsyth
to know if he Should renew the subject with
Lord Palmerston and, if 80, the degree or ur-
gency he should adopt. 70 which Mr. FORSYTH
replied no "the President expects, from the
TONE Of Mr.. FoX's CONVERSATION, that the Bri.
fish Government will answer your application in
the case, WITHOUT MUCH FURTHER DELAY
But, in point of fact, no answer was given by
the British Government down to the period Of
the late Administrations exit from power.
All this while, then, the destruction Of the
"Caroline," stood unerplained and unaroued bv
the British Government, and there was nothing
Of a conclusive nature to determine whether it
was to be viewed as an unauthorized act of in.
dvid'als or as the public act Of the British au.
horites. In this state Of things, Mcleod, in
November last, came into the State of New
York, and having, from his idle, and, as is now
universally believed, false boasts, incurred the
suspicion Of having been guilty and conspic.
uous actor in the destruction Of the Csroline he
was arrested and indicted therefor upon a
charge of murder and arson. Mr.. Fox, on the
18th of December, demanded of the Govern
ment of the United States tho liberation of
Mcleod, OH the ground "that the destruction of
the steamboat Caroline is well known 10 have
been public act of persons in Her Majesty
service, obeying the order of their superior au-
thorites." The demand was refused, because
the Government Of the United States had no
right to interfere with the judicial tribunals of
New York, which had taken cognizance of the
case--and in regard 10 the declaration of Mr..
Fox, Mr.. Forsyth stated that Z" if the destruction
of the Caroline was public act OF persons in
Her Majesty's service, obeying the order of
their superior authorities, the fact has no, been
before communicated to the Government of the
United States by person authorized to make
the admission and it will be for the court which
has taken cognzance of the offence with which
Mcleod is charged to decide upon its validity,
when legally established before it." Mr.. Fox,
recurring to the same subject, in his letter to
Mr.. Forsyth ofthe Doth December, 1910, stated
that he was not authorised TO pronounce the
decision of Her Majesty's Government upon
thu remonstrance which had been addressed to
It by the United States against the act in ques-
fion."
Thus stood the question at the accession of
the present Administration. The destruction of
he Caroline had not as yet been by the British