WASHINGTON, _January 9, 1843_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I have received a resolution of the Senate of the 27th of December, in
the following terms:
_Resolved_, That the President be requested to inform the Senate, if
compatible with the public interest, whether the quintuple treaty
for the suppression of the slave trade has been communicated to the
Government of the United States in any form whatever, and, if so, by
whom, for what purpose, and what answer may have been returned to such
communication. Also to communicate to the Senate all the information
which may have been received by the Government of the United States
going to show that the "_course which this Government might take in
relation to said treaty has excited no small degree of attention and
discussion in Europe_." Also to inform the Senate how far the "_warm
animadversions_" and the "_great political excitement"_ which this
treaty has caused in Europe have any application or reference to the
United States. Also to inform the Senate what danger there was that
"_the laws and the obligations_" of the United States in relation to
the suppression of the slave trade would be "_executed by others_," if
we did not "_remove the pretext and motive for violating our flag and
executing our laws_" by entering into the stipulations for the African
squadron and the remonstrating embassies which are contained in the
eighth and ninth articles of the late British treaty. Also that the
President be requested to communicate to the Senate all the
correspondence with our ministers abroad relating to the foregoing
points of inquiry. Also that the President be requested to communicate
to the Senate all such information upon the negotiation of the African
squadron articles as will show the origin of such articles and the
history and progress of their formation.
I informed the Senate, in the message transmitting the treaty with
England of the 9th of August last, that no application or request had
been made to this Government to become a party to the quintuple treaty.
Agents of the Government abroad, regarding the signature of that treaty
as a political occurrence of some importance, obtained, unofficially,
copies of it, and transmitted those copies to the Department of State,
as other intelligence is communicated for the information of the
Government. The treaty has not been communicated to the Government of
the United States from any other quarter, in any other manner, or for
any other purpose.
The next request expressed in the resolution is in these words:
Also to communicate to the Senate all the information which may have
been received by the Government of the United States going to show that
the "course which this Government might take in relation to said treaty
has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe." Also
to inform the Senate how far the "warm animadversions" and the "great
political excitement" which this treaty has caused in Europe have any
application or reference to the United States.
The words quoted in this part of the resolution appear to be taken from
my message above mentioned. In that communication I said:
No application or request has been made to this Government to become
a party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it
has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as
the principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it
contains have caused warm animadversions and great political
excitement.
In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress
I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports
respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of
maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing
obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent
with the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its
own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own
power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one
nation by the cruisers of another for any purposes except those known
and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or
regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is
far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity or any
motive for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant
vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to
touch the point of national honor as well as to affect the interests
of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in
accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the
same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating
the immunities of the American flag upon the seas as they exist and
are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now
submitted to the Senate.
The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation,
or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply
that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a
sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws,
rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the
slave trade.
These opinions were expressed by me officially upon the occasion of
making to the Senate a communication of very great importance. It is not
perceived how the accuracy of this general statement can be doubted by
those who are acquainted with the debates of public bodies in Europe,
the productions of the press, and the other modes by which public
opinion is manifested in an enlightened age. It is not to be supposed
that excited attention to public and national transactions or general
political discussions in Europe on subjects open to all the world are
known only in consequence of private information communicated to the
Government, and feeling a strong persuasion that it would be improper in
the Executive to go into any discussion or argument upon such a subject
with the Senate, I have no further remarks to make upon this part of the
inquiry.
The third inquiry is:
What danger there was that "the laws and the obligations" of the United
States in relation to the suppression of the slave trade would be
"executed by others" if we do not "remove the pretext and motive for
violating our flag and executing our laws."
I have already quoted from the message the entire paragraph to a part of
which this portion of the inquiry is supposed to refer.
As to the danger there was that the laws and the obligations of the
United States in relation to the suppression of the slave trade would
be executed by others if we did not remove the pretext and motive for
violating our flag and provide for executing our laws, I might say that
this depends upon notorious facts and occurrences, of which the evidence
has been in various forms before the country and all the branches of the
Government.
When I came to occupy the Executive chair I could not be ignorant
of the numerous complaints which had been made on account of alleged
interruptions of American vessels engaged in lawful commerce on the
coast of Africa by British cruisers on the ground of their being engaged
in the slave trade. I could not be ignorant, at the same time, of the
well-grounded suspicions which pervaded the country that some American
vessels were engaged in that odious and unlawful traffic. There were two
dangers, then, to be guarded against--the one, that this traffic would
continue to be carried on in American ships, and perhaps much increased,
unless some new and vigorous effort should be made for its suppression;
the other, that acquiescence in the capture of American vessels,
notorious slave dealers, by British cruisers might give countenance to
seizures and detentions of vessels lawfully employed on light or
groundless suspicions. And cases had arisen under the administration of
those who preceded me well calculated to show the extent and magnitude
of this latter danger; and believing that very serious consequences
might in time grow out of the obvious tendency and progress of things,
I felt it to be my duty to arrest that progress, to rescue the immunity
of the American flag from the danger which hung over it, and to do this
by recommending such a provision for the execution of our own laws as
should remove all pretense for the interference of others.
Among the occurrences to which I have alluded, it may be useful to
particularize one case.
The schooner _Catharine_, an American vessel owned by citizens of the
United States, was seized on the coast of Africa by the British cruiser
called the _Dolphin_ and brought into the port of New York in the summer
of 1839. Upon being brought into port, Benjamin F. Butler, esq.,
district attorney of the United States for the southern district of
New York, appeared in the district court of the United States for that
district and in the name and behalf of the United States libeled the
schooner, her apparel and furniture, for a violation of the several acts
of Congress passed for the suppression of the slave trade. The schooner
being arrested by the usual process in such cases and possession taken
of her from the hands of the British captors by officers of the United
States, the cause proceeded, and by a decree of the circuit court in
December, 1840, a forfeiture was pronounced. From this decree an appeal
was taken, which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United
States.
It is true that in another case, that of the _Tigris_, of like general
character, soon after arising, the then Secretary of State, on the 1st
of March, 1841, informed Mr. Fox, the British minister, that "however
strong and unchangeable may be the determination of this Government to
punish any citizens of the United States who violate the laws against
the African slave trade, it will not permit the exercise of any
authority by foreign armed vessels in the execution of those laws."
But it is evident that this general declaration did not relieve the
subject from its difficulties. Vessels of the United States found
engaged in the African slave trade are guilty of piracy under the acts
of Congress. It is difficult to say that such vessels can claim any
interference of the Government in their behalf, into whosesoever hands
they may happen to fall, any more than vessels which should turn general
pirates. Notorious African slave traders can not claim the protection of
the American character, inasmuch as they are acting in direct violation
of the laws of their country and stand denounced by those laws as
pirates. In case of the seizure of such a vessel by a foreign cruiser,
and of her being brought into a port of the United States, what is to
be done with her? Shall she be libeled, prosecuted, and condemned as if
arrested by a cruiser of the United States? If this is to be done, it
is clear that the agency of a foreign power has been instrumental in
executing the laws of the United States. Or, on the other hand, is the
vessel, with all her offenses flagrant upon her, to be released on
account of the agency by which she was seized, discharged of all
penalties, and left at liberty to renew her illegal and nefarious
traffic?
It appeared to me that the best, if not the only, mode of avoiding these
and other difficulties was by adopting such a provision as is contained
in the late treaty with England.
The Senate asks me for the reasons for entering into the stipulations
for the "remonstrating embassies" contained in the late treaty. Surely
there is no stipulation in the treaty for any "remonstrating embassies,"
or any other embassies, nor any reference or allusion to any such thing.
In this respect all that the treaty provides is in the ninth article and
is in these words:
The parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming
representations and remonstrances with any and all powers within whose
dominions such markets [for African slaves] are allowed to exist, and
that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of
closing such markets effectually, at once and forever.
It always gives me sincere pleasure to communicate to both Houses of
Congress anything in my power which may aid them in the discharge of
their high duties and which the public interest does not require to
be withheld. In transmitting the late treaty to the Senate everything
was caused to accompany it which it was supposed could enlighten the
judgment of the Senate upon its various provisions. The views of the
Executive, in agreeing to the eighth and ninth articles, were fully
expressed, and pending the discussion in the Senate every call for
further information was promptly complied with, and nothing kept back
which the Senate desired. Upon this information and upon its own
knowledge of the subject the Senate made up and pronounced its judgment
upon its own high responsibility, and as the result of that judgment the
treaty was ratified, as the Journal shows, by a vote of 39 to 9. The
treaty has thus become the law of the land by the express advice of the
Senate, given in the most solemn manner known to its proceedings. The
fourth request is--
That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all the
correspondence with our ministers abroad relating to the foregoing
points of inquiry.
If this branch of the resolution were more definite, some parts of
it might perhaps be met without prejudice to the public interest
by extracts from the correspondence referred to. At a future day a
communication may be expected to be made as broad and general as a
proper regard to these interests will admit, but at present I deem any
such communication not to be consistent with the public interest.