Public Leger, Volume 1, Number 19, Richmond, Wayne County, 17 July 1824 — Page 1

PUBLIC LEGER,

[JfUMBER 19.]

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED EVERT SATURDAY BT EDMUND S. BUXTON, front opposite the Richmond Hotel. ' the price of this paper It Two Dollars for fifty-two numbers, tv be paid Ift advance; Two Dollars and Fifty Cents if paid within the year, or Three Dollars, if not paid before the expiration of the year payment in advance bcine to the mutual interest of both parties, that mode 1* solicited. Ho subscription taken for less than six months, and no paper discontinued until all arrearages are * pa id. failure to notify a discontinuance at the Expiration of the time Subscribed for, will be considered tfrM Ijdtfrsto'the Editor must have the postage paid ot they will not be attended to, TERMS OF ADVERTISING. ' fifteen lines, or less, for three insertions One Dollar—each continuance Twenty-five cents, Larger advertisements in the same proportion, John Q. Adams on tmelßlave Trade. Extract from the correspondence communicated to > the Mouse of Representatives, respecting the African Slave Trade, March I ft, 1824. Mr. Adams , to Mr. Canning. Department of State, Washington, Uth June, 1823. In the treaties of Great Britain with fipain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for tae suppression of the slave trade, heretofore communicated, With the invitation to theU. States to enter into similar engagements, three principles were involved, to tKfiftber of which the government of the U. States felt itself at liberty to accede* The first was the mutual concession of the right of search and capture, In time of peace, oter merchant vessels, on the coast of Africa, The second was, the exercise of that fight even over vessels under convoy of the Sublic officers of their own nation; and the lird was the trial of the captured vessels by mixed commissions in colonial settlements,under no subordination to the ordinary judicial tribunals of the country to which the party brought before them for trial should belong, in the course of the correspondence relating to those proposals, it has been suggested that a substitute for foe trial by mixed commissions might be agreed to, and in tour letter of the Bth of April, an expectation is authorized, that an arrangement for the adjudication of the Vessels detained, might leave them to be disposed of in the ordinary way, by the ientence of a Court of Admiralty in the Country of the captor, or placo them under the jurisdiction of a similar court in the country to which they belonged 5 to the for foer alternative, of which you anticipate tfie unhesitating admission of the United States, in consideration of the aggravated nature of the crime, as acknowledged by their laws, which would be thus submitted to a foreign jurisdiction. But it was precisely because the jurisdiction was foreign that the objection was taken to the trial by mixed commissions; and if it transcended t!ie constitutional authority of the government of the U.- S. to subject the persons, property, and reputation, of their citizens, to the decisions of a Court partly composed of their own countrymen, it might seem needless to remark, that the constitutional objection could not diminish, in proportion as its cause should increase, or that the power incompetent to make American citizens amenable to a court consisting onehalf of foreigners, should be adequate ten place their liberty,their fortune, and their fame, at the disposal of tribunals entirely foreign. I*would further remark, that the sentence of a Court of Admiralty, in the country of the captor, Is not the ordinary may by which the merchant vessels of one nation, taken qn the high seas, by the officers of another, are tried in time of peace. I here is, in the ordinary way, no right whatever existing, to take, to search, or even to board them; and I take this occasion to express the great satisfaction with which we have seen tliis principle solemnly recognized by the recent decision of a British Court of Admiralty. Nor is the aggravation of the crime for the trial of which a tribunal may be instituted, a cogent motive for assenting to the principle of subjecting Americau citizens,their rights a >id interests, to the decision of foreign courtß * for, although Great Britain, as you remark, ihajr be willing to abandon those °! her subjects who defy the laws and tarmsh the character of their country, by par- , p , P a * , . n S^ n fWs trade, to the dispensation of justice even by foreign hands, the U. Otates are bound to remember that the power which enables a court to try the gouty, authorizes them also to pronounce pon the fate of the innocent; and that e question of guilt or innocence is at which the protecting care of their con-

friendly TO thought, to freedom, and to peace.”— Cooper.

RICHMOND, WAYNE COUNTY, INDIANA, SATURDAY, JULY IT, 1894.

I stitution has reserved for the citizens of of this Union, to the exclusive decision of their own countrymen. This principle has not been departed from by the statute which bas branded the slave trader witb the name, and doomed him to ibe punishment of a pirate. The distinction between piracy, by ibe law of nations, and piracy by statute, is well known and understood in Great Britain; and while tbe former subjects the transgressor guilty of it, to tbe jurisdiction of any and every country into which be may be brought, or wherein be may be taken, the latter forms a part of the municipal criminal code of the country where it is enacted, and can be tried only by its own courts. There remains the suggestion, that the stave trader captured under the mutual concession of the power to make the capture, might be delivered over to the jurisdiction of hit own country. This arrangement would not be liable to tbe constitutional objection, which must ever apply to the jurisdiction of the mixed commissioner of the admiralty courts of the captor; and if your note is to be understood as presenting it in the character of an alternative, to which your government is disposed to accede, I am authorized to say, that the President considers It as sufficient to remove the insuperable obstacle which had precluded the assent of the United States to the former proposals of your, government, resulting from the character and composition of .the tribunals, to whom the question of guilt or innocence was to be committed. , The objections to /he right of search, as incident to the right of detentipn and capture, are also in a very considerable degree, removed by the introduction of the principle that neither of them should be exercised, but under the responsibility of the captor to the tribunals of the captured party, in damages and costs. l*his guard against the abuses of a power So liable to abuse, would be indispensable; but, if the provisions necessary for securing, aflectually, its practical operatiqn, would reduce the right itself to power merely nominal, the stipulation of it in a treaty would serve rather to mark the sacrifice of a great and firecious principle, than to attain the end or which it would be given up. In the objections heretofore disclosed to the concession desired, of the mutual and qualified right of search, the principal stress was laid upon the repugnance which such a concession would meet in the public feeling of this country, and of those to whom its interest are intrusted in the department of its government, the sanction of which is required for the ratification of treaties. The irritating tendency of the firactice of search, and the inequalities of ts probable operation, were slightly noticed, and have been contested in argument, or met by propositions of possible palliatives, or remedies for anticipated ahuses, in your letter. But the source and foundation of aH these objections, was, in our former correipondence, scarcely mentioned, and never discussed. They consist in the nature of the right of search, at sea, which, as recognized or tolerated by the usage of nations, is a right exclusively of war. never exercised but by an outrage upon the rights of peace. It is an act analogous to that of searching the dwellinghouses of individuals on the land. The vessel of the navigator is his dwelling-house; and like that, in the sentiment of every people that cherishes the blessings of personal libbrly and security, ought to be a sanctuary inviolable to the hand of power, unless upon the most unequivocal necessity, and under the most rigorous personal responsibility ofihe intruder. Search at sea, as recognized by all maritime nations, is confined to the single object of finding and taking contraband of war. By the law of nature, when two nations conflict together in war, a third, remaining neutral, retains all its rights of peace and friendly inwith both. Each belligerent, indeed, acquires, by war, the right of preventing a third party from administering to his ehemy the direct and immediate materials of war; and, as incidental to this right, that of searching the merchant vessels of the neutral on the high seas, to find them. Even thus limited, it is an act of power, which nothing but necessity can justify, inasmuch as it cannot he exercised hut by carrying the evils of war into the abodcs of peace, and by visiting the innocent witli 6ome of the penalties of guilt.— Among the modern maritime nations, an usage has crept in, not founded upon the

law of nature, never universally admitted, often successfully resisted, &. against which all have occasionally borne testimony, by renouncing it in treaties, of extending this practice of search and seizure to all the property of the enemy in the vessel of the friend. This practice was, in its origin, evidently an abusive and wrongful extension of the search for contraband; effected by the belligerent, because be was armed; submitted to by tbe neutral, because be was defenceless; and acquiesced in by bis sovereign, for the sake of preserving a remnant of peace,rather than become himself a party to the war. Having thus occasionally, been practised by all, as belligerents, and submitted to by all as neutrals, it has acquired the force of an usage,which at tbe accurrence of every war, the belligerent nay enforce or relinquish, and which the neutral may suffer or resist, at their respective options. This search for, and seizure of, the property of an enemy in the vessel of a friend, is a relic of tbe barbarous ages; the cruel, and, for the most part, now exploded system of private war. As it concerns the enemy himself, it is inconsistent with that mitigated usage of modern wars, which respects tbe private property of individuals on the land. As relates to the neutral, it is a violation of his natural right to pursue, unmolested, his peaceful commercial intercourse with his friend. Invidious as is its character, in both these aspects, it has other essential characteristics, equally obnoxious. . It is an uncontrolled exercise of authority,by a man in arms, over a man without defence; by an officer of one nation over tbe citizen of another; by a man intent upon the annoyance of his enemy, responsible for the act of search to no tribunal, and always prompted to balance the disappointment of a fruitless search, by the abusive exercise of his power, and to punish the neutral for the very clearness of his neutrality. It has, in short, all the features of unbridled power, stimulated by unsocial passions. I forbear to enlarge upon the further extension ot) this practice, by referring to injuries, which the U. States experienced, when neutral,in a case of vital importance; because, in digesting a plan for tne attainment of an object, which both nations have equally at heart, it is desirable to avoid every topic which may excite painful sensations on either side. I have adverted to the interest in question, from necessity, it being one* which could not be lost sight of in the present discussion. Such being the view taken of the right of search, as recognized by the law of nations, and exercised by belligerent powers, it is due to candor to state, that my government has an insuperable objection to its extension by treaty, in any manner whatever, lest it might lead to consequences still more injurious to the U. S. and especially in the circumstance alluded to. That the proposed efctension will operate, in time of peace, and derive its sanction from compact, present no inducements to its adoption. On the contrary, they form strong objections to it. Every extension to the right of search, on the principles of that right, is disapproved. If the freedom of the sea is abridged by compact for any new purpose, the example may lead to other changes. And if its operation is extended to a time of peace, as well as of war, anew system will be commenced for the'dominion of the sea, which may, eventually, especially by the abuses into which it may lead, confound - all distinction of time and circumstances, of peace and of war, and of rights applicable to each State. The U. States have, on great consideration, thought it most advisable to consider this trade as piracy, and to treat it as such. They have thought that the trade itself might, with great propriety, be placed in thatclass of offences; and that, by placing it there, we should more effectually accomplish the great object of suppressing the trade, than by any other measure which we could adopt. To this measure, none of the objections which have been urged against the extension of the right of search, appear to be applicable. Piracy being an offence against the human race, has its well known incidents of capture and punishment by death, by the people and tribunals of every country. By making this trade practical, it is the nature of the.crime which draws after it thenecessary consequences of capture and punishment. The United States have done this by nn act of Congress, in relation to themselves. They

[VOLUME /,]

have, also, evinced their willingness, and expressed their desire, that the change should become general, by tbe consent of every other power, whereby It would be made the law of nations. Till then, they are bound, by tbe injunctions of their constitution, to execute it, so far as respects tbe punishment of their own citizens, by their own tribunals. They consider themselves, however, at liberty, until that consent is obtained, to co-operate to a certain extent, with other ensure a more complete effect to their respective acts; they placing themselves, severally, on the same ground, by legislative provisions. It is in this spirit, antt for this purpose, that 1 have made to you tbe proposition under consideration. By making the slave trade piratical and attaching to it the punishment, as well as the odium, incident to that crime, it is believed thdt much has been done by the U. S. to suppress it, in their vessel!, and by their citizens. If yodr government would unite in this policy, it is not doubted that the happiest consequences would result from It. The example of Great Britain, in a manner so decisive, could not foil to attract the attention, and command the respect, of all her European neighbors. It is the opinion of the U. S. that no measure, short of that proposed, will accomplish the object so much desired; and it is the earnest desire of my government, that tbe government of his Britannic majesty Uiay co-ope-rate in carrying it into effqctr I pray you, Sir, accept the renewed Msuranees of my distinguished consideration. JOHN Q. ADAMS. The Right Hoe* Stratford Canning, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plgnte potentiary from Or eat Britain* Silver mine.— Several gentlemen have recently formed an association and commenced operations for working wbat is commonly called the Old Silver Mine, in Sing Sing, Westchester county, N. Y. At the commencement of the revolutionary war, a number of miners, (say about twenty), were employed in this mine, under the superintendence of col. James, a British officer. He was prevented from prosecuting the undertaking by a peremptory order of our government, in consequence of being the subject of a sovereign with whom we were at war. This order Was issued a short time after the battle of Bunker’s Hill. Front the want of the necessary skill, knowledge and capital united in the same individual it has remained till within a short time, in a great measure neglected. The incompetence of foreigners to acquire the fee simple of mines had been an additional obstacle in the way of those,whose skill and experience was essentially requisite to the developement of the riches of the mine. There is every reason to believe, from facts stated by men of known integrity, originially employed in the same, that it is a mine of the richest kind, and no doubt will bountifully reward those gentlemen who are now engaged In opening it. Thus every day brings to public light some new evidences of the inexhaUstable resources of our country.— JY. Y. Statesman* The Church of Ireland.-*-The cpth* edral of Derry, in Ireland, is in ruins; the cathedral of a diocese whose rental is estimated at 120,000 pounds sterling. The bishop, who gets 80,000 pounds sterling per annum from the diocese, has not been within the walls for many a year; the dean, who has 4,000 pounds sterling ha* not performed service in it for two yehrn A late number of the Dublin Evening Poet contains a letter on the subject from a member of parliament from the county of Derry, a ministeralist and supporter of the church, in which he condemns the conduct of the bishop, dean and chapter, and mentions that the church establishment in Ireland is the richest in Europe, and, that whilst the cathedral of Derry had been failing, the endowments of the bishopric and deanery had been increasing in Wealth. [Are not things like this enough to drive a people mad t What gormandizer* are these of the sweat of the poort Wolves that should be hunted down.] — Niles. Excuse for Smoking.' —l have heard anexcellent excuse alleged for it by an old smoker, that It is good for the memory—and as a proof of it, the advocate remarked, that if a man be ever so drunk, he is reminded by it to drink again.