The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-03-20


Caroline acted in obedience TO the orders Of the supe
ror authorities of the Province Of Upper Canada
or is not amenable to the laws of New York, as for
the crimes of murder and arson and 2 II not, wheh
err the Executive has any power interpose between
! him and the laws of New York
| On these questions forbear expressing any opin-
on in accordance with the view that none is required
ofthe committee Of the House. Ii is sufficient for
the justification oflhe ground have taken that these
questions are the subjects of dpomatic discussion
between the two Governments. The improprety of
the report the manifest from the consideration
that the discussion is but just commenced And il is
unreasonable TO suppose that questions of such
limited extent the Government in the wrong way may
by the further discussion be convinced of its error AT
least we should wait the reply ofthe British Govern
ment TO which the subject is referred and the issue
finally rendered by its Executive.
The consequences of on either side may
compromt the peace of the country In Of repn-
sails executed Ia the extreme point the intervention OF
all the Powers OF Europe could prevent war In
Of these consequences II may be proper to review
the correspondence ascertain the positions taken on
both sides that bear on the case of Mcleod
Mr. Forsyth, in his note of the 9Th January dare
fully and properly avoids giving any national eha rac
tsr to the destruction of the Caroline. He calls an
outrage committed from her Britannia Maj@tys
| Province Of Upper Canada" He leaves it TO lMr
Fox to determine whether it public OF private
wrong, or to disclaim for his Governeent
the responsibility. Mr.. Fox, in his reply, Goth Feb.
/
the fact that it destroyed by the order of the om
mander of the militia in her Majesty's service and
thathe act was approved by the Governor Of thePro
| vince
! And here must express my surprise that Mr. For
syth should deem the late note OF Mr. Fox II be the
first avowal of the fact By person authorized make
it, In the note Of the 9th February 1888 tho fact it.
! self was communicated by MIR. Fox His late note is
only the recognition and assertion of the fac. The
fact then and now avowed is, that the Caroline was
| thaa
| rior authorities; and Mr. Fox contends tina those
obeying were justified by THE 1t remains to
be seen whether the British Government will justify
that ORDER. McLeods case is put on the fist, and
the case of the Caroline on the last
| Mr. PIcKENs Does the gentleman from Vermont
intend to say that the British Minister had eve, before
his late note, avowed that the Caroline was destroyed
by the order of the constituted authorities of Cnada
| Mr. EvERErT. do say that Mr.. Fox, in his note
of the 9th February did ayow it. In the despatch of
/ Sir Francis Head, then communicated 1t is expressly
stated that Col MacNab commanded body Of mill
tia stationed on the frontier that in the nigh of the
29th he sent party Of militia, IN boats, With or
ders to take destroy her. They proceededto exc
cute the order, &c. Nor did he content himself with
the mere communication of the fact but even attempt
ed to Justify the destruction OF the Caroline as IN act of
selfdefence. Mr.. Fox, in reference to the clmmuni
cation of Sir Francis Head, says:
"The piratical character of the steamboat Caroline,
and the necessity of selfdefence and self preservation
under which her Majestys subjects acted in destroy
ing that vessel seem to be sufficiently established"
+" At the time when the event happened, tie ordna-
~ laws of the United States enforced within
the frontier district of the State of New York The
authority of the law overbone, publicly by pratt
cal violence. Through such violence, her Majesty's
subjects in Upper Canada had already severely suffer
ed and they threatened with still further injury
and outrage This extraordinary state ofthngs APP
pears, naturally and necessarily to have impelled
them to consult their security, by pursuing and
destroying the vessel of their pratica enemy, where
soeyer they might find her..
Mr.. Stevenson presents the act, in connexon with
these ayowals as an act of OPEN undisguished I'M
warrantabe hostility" "whoy irrecohcilable with
the friendly and peaceful relations of the two
| tries" He calls upon the British Government to
diSauoio it. 1t is thus, by Minister characterized
as act of And it is for participating in this
act that Mcleod is arrested and on this act, thus
avowed and thus characterized, the question is made
by the two Governments. Sir repeat, let negotia-
ton be exhausted before Congress Is called to act or
20 fntorPose It's UpfntorI o 10 tahe HuI Uur1 0'
/ which when taken there can be no retreat Whe-
Their right or wrong Great Britain may choose TO put
this controversy in advance of the others Let then
be certain that it be not her strongest ground 1t is
much easier to be right at FIRST than to get tight at
last We should also look to the possible consequences
of the of our adversary Is il not among
the possibilities that she may deem herself bound
protect those who have obeyed the orders of their
peror authorities in her service, and that under the
spirit attributed to her in the report she may resort to
retaliation And | repeat, if pushed to the extreme
war inevitable. Is it not then, the safest to
leave the case in the hands of the Executive without
at least adding the excitement, which, from recent
evidence, is sufficiently rife
i But sir the report also embraces the case of the
| Caroline, which not submitted to the committee.
To exhibit the point in controversy only ono addition
to the statement have read is necessary viz That
the destruction of the Caroline is attempted to be JUS
titled in the despatch of Sir Francis Head the
ground of selfdefence He alleges, in substance,
that the force Navy island proceeded from the
! American shore, and augmenting through the
agency of the Caroline, unrestricted by the auhori
ties OF the State of New York. OF of the u States.
! This is the only ground taken by the British Go
vernment justification of the destruction of the
Caroline; and, being taken, report the Of the
Caroline should have it directly by denial either
of the fact of the consequence.
| complain that the is not met No, sir, it is
! not met 1t is evaded Mr.. Fox says, "The place
where the vessel was destroyed was nominally it is
true within the territory OF friendly Power but
the friendly Power had been deprived through
bearing pfatca violence of the of its proper
thory over that portion of territory" And what is
the reply in the report " Now the insnuation of
the British Minister that Schlosser was nominay"
within the territory Of the United States, may well be
retorted as we can, with equal truth, say that Navy
island was " nomInally" within the territory Of the
British Government for, the period to which we all
ude the people collected there had eectualy defed
Canadian authorities any portion Of our people had
ours What is this sir but admission that Schlo
and Navy Island equally in the power ofthe Pa
triots in equal defiance of the power of the Govern
ment to which they respectively belong2 What but
an evasion, if not admission of the ground taken
by Mr. Fox Is this the position on which are
willing to rest causeto place the issue of peace
or war7 No. sir no. | hope we can make better
case In order to make our case, l think the facts
should be re-examined. satisfied to rest the
case on the evidence taken. We should be in the
rrht--we should be certain we right before we
take our final stand. In my Judgment the evidence
should be retaken desire that person Of the high
est responsibility should be commissioned to
mine The whole case, with view to arrive at the
TRUTH whether for against US Perhaps, too, it
might be advisable to ask the British Minister to join
in the investigation. Let the testimony be taken on
both sides of the line. For one desire to know how
far the proper authority of the United States
thrown by the violence of the Patriots desire fur
ther information OF the character of the Caroline In
4 ~ h. e IaIo II