The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-06-05

themselves TO the just consequences which might be
inflicted them il taken within the British domin-
ions. But, notwithstanding this, they were certainly
not pirates does the undersigned think that il
advance the purpose Of fair and friendly discussion
hasten the accommodation of national difficulties
10 denominate them. Their offence, whatever was,
had no analogy 10 Cases Of piracy Supposing all that
Is alleged against them 10 be true, they taking
part on the side of the rebels. Surely England her
self has not regarded persons thus engaged deserv
ing the appeation which Her Maesty's Government
bestows on these citizens ofthe United States.
II quite notorious that for the greatest part the
last Two centuries subjects Of the British Crown have
been permitted To engage in foreign wars both nation
al and civil and in the latter in every stage of their
progress; and yet has not been imagined that Eng
land has at any time allowed her subjects 10 turn p-
rates. Indeed, IN our own times only have indi-
vdual subjects ofihnt gone abroad to enpage in
civil wars, but We have whole regiments ope MY
recruited, embodied armed, and iciplned in England
with the nvowed purpose Of aiding a rebellion 40 ainst
nation with which England at peace although
1t Is true that, subsequently, act of Parliament was
passed 10 prevent transactions nearly approaching
to public war, without license from the Crown
II may be said that there il difference between the
case of civil war; arising from disputed succession
or protracted revolt OF colony against the mother
county, and the Of fresh outbreak at the com
mencenlent of rebellion. The undersigned does not
deny thai such distinctions may for certain purposes
be deemed well founded. He admits that a Govern,
ment called upon 10 consider its rights interests
uuuts Wntn civil WaIS break out IN 0tner cOun-
nes may decide all the circumstances of particular
case upon its own existing spulations probable re-
suits, on what lis own security requires aud many
other considerations. 1t may be already bound to as
slst one pary or may become bound II chooses
to assist the other and the conseq uences Of
such assistance.
But whether the revolt be recent or long continued
they who join those concerned ia it, whatever may be
their offence against their country or however
they be treated if taken with arms in their hands in
\ fhp IF ho
standard ofthe revolt is raised cannot be denominaed
pirates, without departing from all ordinary oflan-
gunge in the definition of offences. A cause which
has so foul an origin piracy cannot in its progress
by its success obtain claim any degree OF respec
liability, or tolerance among nations; and civil wars,
therefore, are not Understood to have such com
mencement.
1t is well known to Mr.. Fox that authorities of the
highest emnence in England, living and dead, have
maintained that the general law of nations does not
forbid the citizens subjects Of Government from
taking part in the civil connections Of another There
is reason, indeed, to think that such may be the
opinion of Her Majesty's Government at the present
moment.
conviction that it is important regard established
distinctions, and to view the and offences Of ind
vidnals IN the exactly proper light But is not to be
inferred that there is the part of this Government
any purpose of extenuatlng in the slightest degree the
crimes of those persons citizens of the United States
who have joined in military expeditions against the
British Governmental Canada. On the contrary, the
President directs the undersigned to say that is his
fixed resolution that all such dsturbers Of the national
peace and volators of the laws Of their country shall
be brought TO exemplary punishment. Nor will the
fact that they are instigated and led to these
by British subjects, refugees from the Provin-
ces, be deemed any excuse pslliaon although is
well worthy of being remembered that the prime NOV
of these disturbances the borders subjects
the Queen, who come within the territories Of the
United States seeking 10 enlist the sympahes oftheir
citizens by all the motives which they able adj
dress to them, account Of grievances real ina
gnary. There is no reason to believe that the design
of any hostile movement from the United States
against Canada has commenced with citizens of the
United States. The true origin of such purposes and
such enterprises the other side of the line But
the Presidents resolution to prevent these tiansgres-
sions Of the laws is not on that account the less
strong Ii is TAKEN not only onformity 10 his duty
under the provisions of existing laws bui in full
sonance with the established principles and practice OF
this Government.
The Government of the United States has not, from
the FIRST fallen into the doubts, elsewhere entertained,
of the true extent of the duties of neutrality 1t has
held that, however may have been in less enghten
cd ages, the just Interpretation of the modern law of
nations s that neutral States bound be strictly
neutral and that it is manifest and gross Improperly
for individuals 10 engage in the civil conf cts of other
States land thus to be at war, while their Government
is at peace. War and peace are high national rela-
tons, which properly be established changed
only by nations themselves
The United States have thought, Also that the
sautary doctrine of on-inlerveniIon by one nation
with the affairs Of others is liable be essentially i'm
paired, it, while Government refrans from interior
ence, interference is still allowed TO its subjects, ind
vidualIy or in masses Ii may happen indeed that
persons choose to leave their country, cmgratc to
other regions and settle themselves uncullvated
lands, in territories belonging to other States. This
cannot be prevented Ivy Governments which allow the
emigration of their subjects and citizens and such
person. having voluntarily abandoned their
try, have no longer claim to its protection, nor is il
longer responsible for their acts Such cases, there
fore, if they occur show no abandonment of the duty
of neutrality.
The Government of the United States has not con-
sdcred il sufficient to confne the duties Of neu-
trality and noninerfercnce to the of Govern
ments whose territories lie adjacent to each other
The application of the principle may be more neces
sary in such cases. but the principle itself hey regard
being the same if those territories be divided by
half the globe. The rule is founded in the improrrie
ty and danger of allowing individuals to make war
their own authority, or, by minglng themselves in
the belIgerent operations of other nations the
hazard OF countcracting the policy, embroing the
relations of their own Government. And the U nted
States have been the first among civilized nations
enforce the observance Of this just rule of neutrality
and peace by special and adequate legal enactments
In the infancy Of this Government, the breaking
out of the European wars which had their origin in
the French Revolution Congress passed laws with
penalties for preventing the citizens of the u
States from taking part in those hostiliiics.
BY these laws It prescribed TO the citizens of the
United States what II understood to be their duty,
neutras, by the law of nations and the duty, Also
which they owed to the interest and honor OF their
own country.
AT a subsequent period, when the American colo
mics of European Power took up against their
Sovereign Congress- not diverted from the established
system of the Government by any temporary considc-
rations not swcrved from its of Justice and of
duty by any sympathies which it might naturally feel
for of the parties, did not hesitate also pass
applicable to the of colonial instruction AMI c
wi war. And these provisions of law have been con-
tinued, revised, and amended and in full force at
the present moment Nor have they been dead let
ter, as il is well known that exemplary runishmenis