M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1864-01-21
"Df The first article nj tba tra.,v ~

|
Ip5ace it was stipulated that eli terri.
tory, places and possessions taken by
sither party from the other during tho
@br should be restored without do
~. ami without any destruction or
carrying away Of tho artillery or 9th
or p"bIic property originally captnr.
I'd ID said posts or places, and which
'tlll remain therein upon the exchange
of tho Publications of this treaty, or
sng slaves or othsr private property
"ln carrying this article into effect
q d'ttiGnIty arose-ths English con-
tended thai { only bouud thsm 10 sur.
render such slaves as had bsen CAP.
iured by them and remained 10 the
post held by their forcoa at the rstifi.
cations OF the treaty y--while the Uni.
teI States insisted that it was equal
y applicable to su1h SLAVES as woto
n British shiDS ot-war 10 our waters
At tho cams time.
The portion Of tbs United State,
IL fully stated in letter from John
Quincy Adams (rhen Minister to Eng
mnj) - tho Secretary of State, dated
August 80, 1915. Referring to a con.
'e'sltion with Lord Liverpool, aud
apeaking for the American Commis-
'Lonats who negotiated tn. treaty,
(a'nry Clay, Albert Gal.atin and
hmsolf) he says.
Oar objsct was the restoration of
| all proparty, including slavea, which
by tue usagos of war among civilized
nations ought not to have been taken.
All pnVa,g property on sh1re was Of
that d9Scri ption. it was entitled by
tho lava OF War to exemption from
capsure-.laVes were private property.
Lord Liverpool said ha thought they
could not ba col,id.rod precisely pn.
der tha geaeraI denomination Of .prl. /,
Vafo property; tabls or a chais, for
INSTANCE, luiglt 5e taken and returned
without changing its condition. but o
living and human being was entitled
TO other considerations. replied
That the troat1 has worked no such
distinction: tho words implicitly rec
ognzod slaves as private property
tie article alluded to slaves or other
private property. Not that | meant
70 deny t'Id principle aln1sd to by
aim, most certainly living, senti-
ent b,ing, and still more human
boins, was to be regarded 10 differ.
sat light from the inanmsts matter
OF which other private property
might consist. And ii on the ground
0F that difference tho British plsuip
otantiAEei objected to restore he orc
while c)ssn'ing to restore the other
va should really have discussed the
subject, Wa might have accepted or
objected to the proposal they would
have rlais. Bat what could that pro
po's have bJenl Upon what ground
olnid GreSt Britain have refused to
restore thenl Waa it because they
hAd been s5iuold away from their
malters By The promises OF British
oiicers2 But had thoy taken New
Orleans or any other Southern city,
would not all the slaVos in It have
hal rs much claim t) the benefit of
such promises as tho fnSitives from
thAir mA5sers esewbero2 How, tbon
could the place have boon evacuated
according to the treaty, without car.
rying away an7 slaves, il the pledge
Of such promises was to protect them
from being restored to their owners2
1t was true procamations had been
issued by British Officers inviting
slaves to desert from their mastara;
We c1nsid rad thom a5 deviationa
from tbs u1tgos Of war; We believed
thai tlJ British Government itsaif
would, wnsn tho hnssilo passions aris-
ing from state OF wGr wonid subside,
cond5ider then in thu sama light, that
bcitain wOnld then be willing 10 ra-
store tho property or to indemnify
the sutE4re' by i,s loss; il she toIs
bound to make good the promises OF
her oth,er to the slaves, shs might
sill be willing TO DO an act OF justice
by cOmpensating the owners oil the
slaves Tor the property Thich had
Hsen irregularly taken from them
Without entering upon DISCUSSION
which might have bson at once M
profitable and irritation sho might con.
slider this engagement only as 0 prom
ise to pay 10 the owners Of slaves only
the valuo OF those OF thom wlioh
might b. carried away. Lord Livor.
poll manifested no disss;iication at
those remarks, nor did.ha attempt to
justify tha proclamation TO which I
alluded.n
"Tho parties were unable to agree,
however, as to tho moaning of the
iisputsd clause, and it was refered to
the arbitration Of the Emperor Of
Russia. who decided IN favor of tia,
United States aud gres. Britain paid
several millions Of dollars ivr the
! slavss carried away"