The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-11-24

perhaps, in regard to the United States without any
reproaeh to their Government, since their institu-
lions entirely discourage the keeping up Of large
standing armies IN time Of peace and their situation
happny eXempts them from the necessity OF main
tanning such expensive and dangerous establishments.
All that can be expected from either Government in
these eases good faith sincere desire preserve
peace and do justice, the of all proper Of
prevention and that, If offences cannot neverthe
less, be always prevented the offenders shall still be
justly punished In all these respects this Govern
uent acknowledges no delinquency in the perform
ance of its duties
Her Majesty's Government are pleased, also, to
speak of those American citizens who took part
with persons In Canada engaged in instruction
against the British Government I" American pr
rates. The undersigned does not admit the pro-
priey or justice Of this designation. IL citizens of
the United States fitted out or were engaged in fit
ting out, military expedition from the United
states, intended TO act against the British Gov
eminent IN Canada, they clearly violating the
laws OF their own country, and exposing them
selves 10 The Just consequences which might be in
hiced on them, if taken within the Briih dominions
But, Notwithstanding this, they ere certainly not
pirates, nor does the undersigned think that it ad
vance the purpose Of fair and friendly discussion
hasten The accommodation of national difficulties
to denomnate them. Their offence, whatever it was
had no analogy to cas,s of piracy. Surprising all
that IS alleged against them to be true they were
taking part IN what they regarded a civil war; and
they were taking part the side Of the ebes Sure
yEngand herself has not regarded persons thus eDgag
ed as deserving the appeilation which Her Maestys
Government bestowed on these citizens Of the Uni
ted States.
1t quite notorious that for the greater part Of
the last two centuries subjects of the British Crown
have been permitted to engage in foreign wars, both
national and civil and in the latter in every stage of
their progress and yet il has not been imagined that
England has at any time allowed her subjects to turn
pirates. Indeed, in our times not only have in
dlvl dual nf
gage in civil wars, but have whole regiments
openly recruited, imbodied, armed, and disciplined
IN England, with the avowed purpose Of aiding re-
bellion against nation with which England at
peace although it is true that subsequently, act
OF Parliament was passed to prevent transactions
nearly approaching TO public war, without license
from the Crown.
1t may be said, that there is difference between
the case OF civil war arising from disputed sue
cession, or otracted revolt Of colony against the
mother country, and the case of the fresh outbreak
| or commencement of rebellion. The undersigned
does not deny that such distinction may for GER
tain purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits
| that Government, called upon to consider its
own rigts, interests, and duties, when civil
wars break out in other countries, may de-
eide on all the circumstances of the par
ticular case upon its existing stipuia-
tons, on probable results, what its security
requires, and on many other considerations 1t may
be already bound to assist party it may be-
| to meet the consequences of such assistance.
But whether the revolt be recent or long continued,
they who join those concerned in it, whatever may be
their offence against their country, however
they may be treated, if taken with arms in their
ands in the territory of the Government against
which the standard of revolt is raised cannot be de-
nominated pirates, without departing from all ordi-
nary use of language in the definition of offences.
cause which has SO foul an origin as piracy cannot
in its progress by its success, obtain claim to any
Qcrrpe re- q
and civil wars, therefore, not understood to have
such q commencement.
1t is well known to Mr.. Fox that authorities of the
highest eminence in England, living and dead have
maintained that the general law Of nalons does not
forbid the citizens subjects of one Government
from taking part in the civil connections of another.
There some reason, indeed to think that such may
be the opinion of her Majesty's Government at the
present moment
The undersigned has made these remarks from
the conviction that it is important TO regard es-
tabished distinctions, and to view the acts and
offences of individuals in the exactly proper light
But it is not 20 be inferred that there is, on
the part Of this Government, any purpose of ex-
tenuatng In the slightest degree the crimes Of those
persons citizens of the United States who have join
ed in military expeditions against the British Govern
ment in Canada On the contrary, the President di
reefs the undersigned to say, that it is his fixed
luton that all such dsubers Of the national peace,
and vloators of the laws of their country shall be
brought to exemplary punishment. Nor will the fact
that they nstigated and led on to these
by British subjects, refugees from the PROV ccs, be
deemed any excuse pailiaton although it is well
worthy OF being remembered, that The prime movers
of these disturbances the borders subjects of
the Queen, who come within the territories of the
United States, seeking TO enlist the sympathics of
their citizens, by all the motives which they able
to address to Them account Of grievances real or
imaginary. 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 pur-
poses and such enterprises is the other side of the
line. But the Presidents resolution to prevent these
transgressons of the laws not, that account the
less strong 1t taken, not only conformity to his
duty, under the provisions of existing laws, but in
full consonance 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 en-
tertained OF the true extent of the duties of neutral
ity. 1t has held that however it may have been in
less enlightened ages, the just Interpretation of the
modern law of nations is that neutral States are
bound to be strictly neutral; and that it manifest
and gross Improperly for individuals TO engage in
the civil conflicts OF other States, and thus to be at
war while their Government is at peace War and
peace are high national relations which properly
be established or changed only by nations them
selves
The United States have thought, aso that the sau-
tary doctrine Of non-nteryenton 10y nation with
The affairs Of othe is liable to be essentially impair
ed If, " lille Government retrains from interference,
interference is still allowed to its subjects, ndivdu-
ally or in masses. 1t may happen, indeed, that per
choose to leave their country, emgrate to other
regions, and settle themselves uncuItivaed lands
in territories belonging TO other States. This cannot
be prevented by Governments which allow the emil
grafton of their subjects and citizens and such per-
sons having voluntarily abandoned their own country,
have longer claim to its protection, is longer
responsible for their acts. Such cases, therefore, if
they occur show abandonment of the duty of
neutrality.
The Government of the United States has not consd-
cred it as sufficient to confne the duties of neutrality
and non-intericrencc to the case of Governments
whose territories lie adjacent to each other. The