The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-06-17

stop 10 argue, but at the knot without the
trouble Of giving any reason Mr.. Stevenson had re-
monstTated IN the most urgent manner, and had sub
mitted 10 the British Government at London mass
Of testimony but notice whatever taken Of has
communication, and no given for their deter
mination. Mr.. Fox, or rather that Government, In
half sentence settles the question.
"The transaction in question: (says the letter may
have been, as her lHajssfys Government are @ OPT
MON that Il tsas, jsffabie employment 81 force for
nc purpose Of defending The British territory &c.
Our remonsirance, when this naughty reply was
written, had been pending for three years. ,a.o
Mr.. Forsyth, in his letter of 10Th December, ioio,
had argumenlaivsy stated the whole case, se'ung
forth that the Of act should be assu-
med by the British Government far from doing away
with ouI ground OF complaint, went only 10 increase
u. II was cumulative, not exculpatory Whhst y
would moi relieve Mcleod from personal responsible
ty il would seriously implicate the British Govern
ment in his gu It. And how is that argument answer
ed y In This naughty mpelious sentence;
"Her Msjesiy's Government cannot believe that
the Government Of the United States really in
tend 10 set example fraught with evil To the COM
munily of nations and the direct tendency oi whi<h
must be bring the practice of modern war afro
cities which civilization and Christianity have long
since banished."
Here is argument attempted, no authority CITED,
but simple declaration put forth IN the strongest
terms the arocity of the principle Tor which
the American Government had been seriously con
ter is Yet 10 come and undertake to say that con,
tans direct threat from the British Government. :
am not extensively acquainted with the language oil
diplomacy, but certainly have not seen any thing
like this threat in any official communication between
civilized AID friendly nations for the last nifty ears
hops may be mistaken in my view Of the language,
but here II is:
| "But be that as it may Her Majesty's Government
formally demand upon the grounds already stated inc
! immediate release OF Mr.. Mcleod; and Her Majes-
TVS Government entreat the President of the United
States take his most deliberate consideration
the serious nature Of the consequences uhieh nuss en-
sue from arejection Of this demand.
| Hhat consequence What consequences1 After
the denunciaton had heard in the British Pariia
ment and all that had occurred In the course oil the
| previous Correspondence could any thing have been
intended but the serious nature OF the consequences
which must ensue from acdr ictth ENGLAND Anu
here let me put am SO unfortunate a. 10 nave
difference with friend OF mine Will suppose u 70
be my friend from South Carolina, Mr.. PREsroN.I
| know, If you please that am in the wrong
My friend comes to me and demands an explanation,
adding, at the time, these words III you 90 not
4 grant the reparaton demanded, enreat youto con
slider the serious consequences which must ensue from
your refusal Certain am there Is not single mem
Der of this Senate might say not an intelligent man
in the civilized world, who would not consider such
| language q menace, which must be WITHDRAWN OF
explained bsiore any PREPARATION could be made. IL
was the moment after read this that deter
mined TO bring the subject before the senate. n
thought then struck me which perhaps should 90 pet
| ter now to repress but il was this. imagined saw
that man whom Mr. Jefferson truly denominated the
old Roman, President, sitting IN his apartment anu
reading this letter for the first time. w hen ne sa"e
to this sentence, what would be his feelings h ns
indignant emotions would arouse IN MS prcas'' VI
him il may be justly said
/" A kin ], true heart; spirit high,
That could not fear, and would not bow,
Is written in his manly eye,
And on his manly brow.
Would he not have resolved never to make any e1-
PLANTATION under such a threat Would he not nave
required it to be Withdrawn or explained before any
answer whatever TO Mr.. Foxs demandl In this pos
sbIy he might have gone too tar. Our Secretary now
ever has passed over this threat without adverng TO
il in any manner whatever
And now we come to the case Immediately before
The Senate Although think the Secretary OF State
decidedly wrong in his view Of the law OF nations that
! TO me is comparatively a very small matter nave
not in this thing, any personal or private eeng 70
CRAFTY Towards the Secretary OF State cherish no
nnkindly feelings and i sincerely hope that he may
DISCHARGE the duties Of his high and responsible sta
ton in such a to rebound more and more 10
! his honor. What complain OF is tins omission,
and an OMISSION consider, of great consequence he
has not his reply noticed that threat at ALL although
il was conveyed in such terms would have entirely
justified him in saying "the American Government mas
no answerio give until ms language mas peeh
ed" He should least have said, "this is menace,
such usual in the diplomatic correspondence be-
tween civilized and independent nations and shall DO
glad if YOU will explain reconsider the language en-
ployedp For myself said Mr. b., have no desire Tor
war with England; so far am from desiring it, that
would consent to sacrifice all but honor in order
to avoid it, But think Mr.. Webster to blame in not
noticing language which consider as containing
very distinct and Ineligible threat But let that pass
Even if the Secretary were right in the view he
takes Of the law Of nations, still think that common
prudence would have dictated to him not to express
his opinion strongly 1t was then Judicial 9ues-
ton tending and eventually to be decided, by the high
est court in the State of New York; tribunal which,
on all hands and by Mr. Webster himself, is admitted
10 be eminently entitled to confidence Suppose II
should happen Gas it will happen, if my humble judg
ment of the law should prove correc) that the Su-
preme Court OF the State Of New York and the Score
tary of State of the United States should differ in opn
ion as to the legal question Suppose appeal should
then be taken f such an appeal may be taken to the
Supreme Court OF the United States, and it should
there be decided, feel great confidence that II
should be- against the opinion ofthe Secretary of State
what would be the condition Of this Government
The judicial authority will be side of the
question: and the Executive Government on the other.
Whilst the Judiciary decide that Mcleod is response
BILE in the criminal courts of New York. the Secretary
decides that he is not. By prejudging this pending
judicial question: the Secretary has placed himself in
an awkward dilemma, should the Supreme Court Of
New York determine that the recognition and ustif
cation by the British Government Of the capture of
the Caroline does not release Mcleod from personal
responsibility. In common prudence, therefore, MI.
Webster ought TO have expressed no decided opinion
on this delicate question: but left il 10 the judiciary, as
Mr.. Van Burens administration had done 80
But the Secretary of State thought otherwise. The
mperous tone of Mr.. Foxs letter does not seem 10
have produced any effect on his mind. Three short
days after its date on the 9th March, 1871, he issues
his instructions TO the Attorney General These in
structions are the real substantial answer TO Mr..
Foxs letter. and have proved entirely satisfactory to
the British Government, they could not have failed
TO do The letter written by Mr.. Webster the
9th Of the succeeding April, will never disturb that
Government. Long before it written, the Secre-
tary had granted them every thing which they could
have desired