i.
if
if
I.
,2
-—-.g--..,
i
f
t
l.
.
'_.§,,_.';1-: '- - '..:..«r..'.
SLAVE TRADE. . _ g
In the abseriee of more 'iiite'restir'i'g Triatfer
iindei Ainericatifcolofs, beer) di's'co‘vered,
for some time past, on tlie_ coast of Africa, it
requires but little reflectir_‘i_n_ to prove-, that no
conclusive inference can be drawn from that
‘we have this ‘week g'iv'en‘place 30 5,°“‘e.P‘*-” Of circiimstanbe‘. "Not to dwell upon‘ the extent
tithe,.c0rrespi)ndeii”celbetweetlthe Brfilslt arid
American Goverdinents respe'_‘ctiiig.tli'e stip-
-‘prcssion ofthe Slade Trade. ‘ -‘The first letter
‘is from the British Minister,ivho was at Wasti-
iugton when the ’co"r're'spo'ndenc'e took place :
it calls on this country to co-‘operat'e‘with Eng-
'land in all measures for the attaiiiiiieiit of this
‘object, and urges the mutual exercise of the
'n'_gItt qfsearch. To this proposition, says the
N. Y. Americaii, whicli, under the specious
iguise ofa liiiiiiagiiepiirpose, would lead to the
recognitioii and adoption ofa principle against
"which this country has so long conteiided,Mr.
Adams replies,and with his accustomed force,
"ability and clearness, demonstrates its utter
inedinissibility.
ivia. ‘cxnninc T0 iiiit. Apxsis. .
7Vasht'ngton, ./flpril 8th, lts23.—’—Sir-—I have
received your official letter, dated the 31st til-
time, in answer to that which I had the honor
of addressing to you on the 29th of Jaiiiiary ;
and, together with it, a transcript of the 4th
and 5th sections of an act of Congress, ap-
proved the 15th of May, 1820. .
From this communication, I learn that the
Government of the United States is willing
to join with other powers in declaring slave
trade piracy, under the law of nations, and
treating the perpetrators of this crime as ene-
mies of the human race; that the American
governiiient is further prepared to enter into
a formal engagement with Great Britain, to
the effect of carrying the principle just speci-
fied into immediate operation, reciprocally as
to their respective subjects or citizens ; and fi-
nally, that, as soon as this proposal shall be
accepted by the British Governu-rent, the U-
nited States will be ready to concur in press-
ing its adoption on the court of France, and
other maritime powers,in such manner as may
afford the fairest prospect of success.
In whatever degree His Majesty’s Govern-
ment may be disposed to receive this offer, as
an acknowledgment that nieasurcs more ef-
ficient than any now generally in force, are
indispensable for the suppression of the slave
trade, it is not difficult to foresee, that fresh
sentiments ofregret will be excited, by the
unfavorable view which the American admiri-
istration continues to take of -the principal
measure suggested on the part of His Majes-
ty. That measure, you are well aware, sir, is
it mutual limited concession of the right of
searcli ; and though, as I have frequently stat-
ed, his Majesty’s Government, in adopting it
by treaty with several of the maritiine powers,
and in recommending it with earnestness to
the acceptance of others, particularly ofthe
United States, have never opposed the con-
sideration of any other plan, brought forward
as equally effective ; yet, having, front the
first, regarded it in conscience as the only
true and practical cure fortheevilin‘ question,
they are naturally anxious, from a deep sense
of duty, to place it in its proper light, and to
guard it, as far as possible, from prejudice or
misconception. I, therefore, deem it of im-
portance, on this occasion, to bring into one
point of view; the several limitations under
which it is conceived, that the right of search
iriight be so exercised, as to clear it_of every
imaginable difficulty. To give the intended
limitations theirjust value, it is requisite to
bear in mind the particular objections, which
have been urged against the inierrzhange ofa
rightofsearch ; and for these,in their full ex-
tent, I can hardly be wrong in referring to
your former correspondence, since the last
communication which I have received from
you on this subject, though it describes the
impressions of the American Government, as
remaining unaltered, does not exhibit any ar-
gument in support oftlieir opinion.
In answer to that class ofohjectioiis which
relate to the mixed commissions established
by treaty, between His Majesty and the courts
of Lisbon, Brussels, and Madrid, it may suf-
fice to remind you ofthe intimation conveyed
through Mr. Rush, in the early part of last.
year, which I had subsequently the honour of
confirming at the Departinent of State. It
might be expected that any arrangement for
the adjudication of vessels engaged in the
slave trade, independent of those tribunals,
would either leave the detained vessels to be
disp_osed ofin the ordinary way, by the seri-
tence ofa court of admiralty in the country
of the captor, or place them under the juris-
diction of a similar court in the country to
which they belonged. On the former suppo-
sition, it is not to be anticipated that the Unit-
ed States could hesitate to admit the jiirisdic-
tion ofa foreign court of admiralty, when
sanctioned by mutual agreement, over the
persons‘ and property ofcitizens, abandoned to
a pursuit, so‘ flagrantly iniquitous as to be
classed by the Legislature of their country
with crimes ofthe most heinous description,
and which the Anierican governineut has de-
clared its willingness to treat as piracy, under
the law of nations. Great Britain, for her
part, tlesires no other than that any of her
subjects, who so far defy the laws, and dlSl)0:»-
or the character oftlieir country, as to engage‘
in a trade of blood, proscribed not. more by
the acts of the Legislature than by the na-
tional feeling, should be detented and brought
to justice, even by foreign hands, and from
under the protection ofher flag. In either of
the stipposed cases, it is clear that all impedi-
ments connected with the forms of proceed
ing, and peculiar construction of the mixed
commissions, would be completely avoided ;
and, with respect to any embarrassuient at-
tending the disposal of condemned vessels,
and liberated slaves, it has already been sug-
gested by a committee of the House of Rep-
resentatives, that the provisions of the act of
Congress, passed the 3d of March, 1819,
might be applied to them without difficulty or
incbnvenience.. The question being thus
relieved from all connection with the mixed
commissions, every constitutional objection,
arising otit of their alleged incompatibility
with the institutions of the U. States, is at
once rernoverl from consideration. The re-
niaiiiiiig obstacles may be reduced under the
following heads : the unpopularity of the
right to search in this country ;, its tendency,
iftnutually emplo'yed,to produce an unfriend-
ly collission between the two nations; and
a certain supposed inequality, which would
attend its exercise. ' '
With respect to any doubt of its utility,cre.-
tiled bya persuasion that very few vessels” visit thus autliorized at sea, beyond the par-,
vorable-to tlie‘con"cealiiie'tit of trading vessels,
it must be remei'iibei'ed, that the U. States
have maintained, at no time, a greater num-
ber of cru'izers than two, rarely riiore than
one, and latterly, during several months to-
gether, no ship of war, whatever, on the Afri-
can station. "As late as the 14th of January,
1822, it was stated, ofiicially, by the Governor
of Sierra Leone, ‘ that the fine rivers Nunez
and Pongas,were under the control ofreiiega-
do European and American slave traders.’
But, ifit were even manifest, that the ac-
tive and judicious exertions ofyour naval offi-
cers, in that quarter, had really effected a to-
tal disuse of the American flagin ‘slave trad-
ing, the right of search would still be most
highly desirable, in order to secure and ex-
tend so important an advantage. As an ex-
ample, indeed, to other powers, particularly
to France, whose subjects, encouraged by the
loose and equivocal measures of their govern-
uient, are convicted,by a mass ofevideiice too
strong to be resisted, of being concerned, to a
deplorable degrce,in this atrocious commerce,
the concurrence of the U. States in a system
of which, the very first result is to augment
considerably the means of bringing ofi'enders
to justice, can hardly be rated at too high a
value. The example which they are called
upon to give, is not merely due tothe claims
of humanity; Great Britain, and the. U.States,
are not only pledged to put down the slave
trade-, within the limits of their immediate ju-
risdiction ; they are also bound, by solemn ob-
ligations, to employ their utmost endeavors
for its complete and universal exteruiination.
They have both succeeded in their great and
benevolent object, so far as the rigor of legis-
lative enactments is capable of cotinteriictiiig
the temptation ofenorinous profit,wliicli stim-
ulates the unprincipled avarice of the slave
merchant. It is the facility of escaping de-
tection, and not any want of severity in the
punishment attached to a violation of their
laws, as far as they are concerned, requires a
tnore decisive remedy; and, a remedy ade-
quate to the evil, can only be found in such
measures as will strip the illicit trader ofere-
ry disguise, and throw the chances entirely
on the side offailure in his inhuman specula-
tions. In the case of searcli, at sea, the means
unavoidably employed in the coinmissiou of
this crime are fortunately, it may be said pro-
videntiall_v,of such a nature, as in general to
furnish a plain substantial body ofproof, for
the conviction of the criminal.
For the satisfaction of those who seriously
apprehend that the friendly relations siibsist-
ing between the two countries would be en-
dangered, by the adinission of atpractice
which, in their opinion, must necessarily pro-
duce a vexatious exercise of authority on the
part of the searching ofiicer, and frequent
complaints on that of the merchant, whose
vessel is subjected to search, with the suppos-
ed aggravation of an unequal pressure on one
ofthe contracting parties, His Majesty’s Gov-
ernment would doubtless, agree to confine the
right of visit to a fixed number of cruisers on
each side, restricted, in the performance of
this duty, to certain specified parts of the o-
cean, and acting under regulations, prepared
by mutual consent, for the purpose of prevent-
ing abuses. To these important limitations,
ifiiot deemed sufficient, others might easily
be added ; the arrangement, for example,
might be temporary, adopted, in the first iii-
stance, fora short period, and only to be cori-
tinued in ilie event of its being found, on tri-
al, to operate in a satisfactory manner. With
this understanding, "a speedy termination,
would, at least, be ensured, to any objectiona-
ble result, attending its operation; and, for the
sake ofinterests as dear to liuiuanity, an ex-
periineiit, ofwhich the advantage, as to its
inaiti object, is certain and complete, the
inconvenience, contingent and nioineiitary,
might surely be reconciled with a‘ dire regard
to considerations exclusively national.
Supposing that inconvenience should be
found, in practice, to press unequally on eiili-
er of the two parties, Great Britain, and not
the U. States, is most likely to have cause of
complaint, iiiasuiiicli as the greater extent of
her trade, especially on the coast of Africa,
must naturally expose her, in a greater de-
gree, to any injurious consequences ofthe it-
greenient. Great Britain, however, is less
tlis-posed to shrink from any sacrifice,by which
she can materially advance the sacred cause
of abolition, than to lament, and, if possible to
dispel tiiose mistaken notions, and unfounded
jealousies,which deprive her exertions oftlieir
full effect, and serve, but too successfully, to
protract the existence ofa mischief, which all
unite in deplorinw. ln point of principle,the
honor of neither flag would be tarnished, by
having its protection withdrawn, for a season,
from those who perpetrate the atrocities of
the slave trade; and permit me, sir, to add,
that what Great Britain is ready to allow, in
a matter so vital to her pride and to her pow-
er, may surely be allowed, reciprocally by any
other nation, however scrupulous in the main-
tenance of its inaritimc independence.
That an agreement between our respective
cabinets, founded on a mutual right ofsearch,
thus guarded and explained, would fail to ob-
tain the coiiseiii of the American Senate, or
that anation so inquiring and enlightened as
the U. States, would coiifoutid the proposed
measure wiili that practice, which afforded
matter of painful contention during the last
wars in Europe, is what I am extremely un-
willing to anticipate. The two objects are,
in fact, so totally distinct from each other, in
principle, purpose, and mode of execution,
that the proposal ofthe British Government
need only be presented to the examination, I
will not say of a select and experienced as-
sembly, but ofthe people at large, in order to
be seen in its true bearings.
So far is the British proposal from tendidg
to commit the American government on the
long disputed question ofthe belligerent right
ofsearch, that, ifit may be supposed to touch
that question at all, it appears rather to ope-
rate in the sense of the U. States, than unfa-
vorably for their view ofthe subject.
The officers entrusted o'n either side with
the duty of examining suspected vessels,
would necessarily act under instructions cal-
culated to insure a perfect harmony between
the principle and the application of this con-
ceded riglit, nor is it’ to be feared that they
would presuine',- in any case, to extend the
and nature or the ‘slave coast, peculiarly fa-
tichlar and specified object to which it is
uieaiit to be coufiiieil. ‘
I havethe honour to request, Sir, that you
will again accept the assurance of my -highest
consideration. S'rrtA'rroiu)_CaNNiNG.
Hon. John Adams, Secretary of State, %t.c._
MR. ADAMS rm Mn. CANNING.
Washington, June 924, 1828.-—Sir: In the
letter whichl had the honor of addressing
you, on the 31st of March~last,a proposal was
made, to be submitted to the consideration of
yourGovernment, that the principle assnined
in an act of the Congress ofthe U. S. May 15,
l8€l0,.of considering and punishing the slave
trade as piracy, should be adopted as the basis
of a stipulation by treaty between the United
States and Great Britain; and to be urged
separately upon the adoption of France, iintl
upon the other maritime nations of Europe,
in the manner most conducive to its ultimate
success. It was observed that this offer was
presented as a substitute for that of conceding
in mutual right of search, and a trial by mixed
commissions, to which the U. States could not
be reconciled, and which would be rendered
useless by it.
Your letter of the 8th of April, to which I
have now the honour to reply, intimates that
his .Vlajesty’s Goveriiiiieiitviill be disposed to
receive this offer only as an acknowledgment
that measures more efficient than any now
generally in force, are indispensable for the
suppression ofthe slave trade ;aud that, altho’
they have never opposed the consideration of
airy other plan, brought forward as equally
effective, yet, having front the first, regarded
in mutual limited concession of the right of
search, as the only true and practical cure for‘
the evil, their prevailing sentiment will be of
regret at the unfavorable view still ta ken ofit
by the government of the U. States. Your
fetter therefore urges a re-consideration of the
proposal for this mutual concession of the
right ofsearch, and by presenting important
lllwtllflcilllfllls ofthe proposal heretofore made,
removes some ofthe objections which had been
disclosed in my previous coiniiiunications on
this subject to you.
In the treaties of Great Britain with Spain,
Portugal, and the Netherlands, for the sup-
pression of the slave trade, heretofore commu-
uicaled, with the invitation tothe U. States
to enter into similar engagements, three prin-
ciples were involved, to neither of which the
Government of the United States felt itself at
liberty to accede. The first was the mutual
concession of the rightof search anti capture
in time ofpeace, over merchant vessels on the
coast of Africa. The second was, the exer-
cise of that right even over vessels under con-
voy ol the public officers oftlieir own nation ;
..r.u' the third was the trial of the captured
vessels by mixed commissions in colonial set-
iienienis, under no subordination to the ordi-
naryjudicial tribunals of the country to which
the party brought before them for trial should
belting. In the course ofthe correspondence
relating to these proposals, it has been sugges-
ted that a substitute for the trial by mixed
tzominissions inightbe agreed to, and in your
letter or the 8th of April, an expectatioii is an-
thorized, that an arrangement for the adjudi-
cation of the vessels detained, might leave
them to be disposed ofin the ordinary way,by
the sentence of a Court of Admiralty in the
country or the captor, or place them under the
jurisdiction of a similar court in the country
to wliicn they belonged; to the former altern-
ative of which you anticipate the unhesitating
admission of the United States, in considera-
U01] ofthe aggravated nature of the crime, as
ircknowlerlgcti by their laws, which would be
thus submitted to aforeign jurisdiction. But
it was precisely because thejurisdiction was
_/orcign that the objection was taken to the tri-
ill by mixed couiiiiissions; and ifit transcen-
ded ilie constitutional authority of the Gov-
ernment of the United States, to subject the
persons, property, and reputation oftlieir citi-
zens, to the decisions ofa court partly coiiipo-
sed of their oivn countrymen, it might seem
needless to remark, that the constitiiiional ob-
jection could not diminish, in proportion as
its cause should increase, or that the power
incompetent to make Aniericau citizens a-
meniible to a court consisting one halfof for-
eigners, should be adequate to place their lib-
erty, their fortune, and their fame, at the dis-
posal oftribiinals eiitii'elyfore'igii. [would fur-
ther remark tliatthe sentence of the Court of
Admiralty in the country of the captor, is not
the ordi'1iar_y way by which the inercliant ves-
sels of one nation, taken on the high seas, by
the officers of another, are tried in time of
‘peace. There 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 this principle solemnly recognized
by the recent decision of a British Court of
Arluiiralty. Nor is the aggravation of the
crime for the trial of which a tribunal may be
instituted, a cogent motive assentiug to the
principle of subjecting American citizens,
their rights and interests to the decision offpr-
eign courts; for, although Great Britain, ‘as
you remark, may be willing to abandon those
of her subjects who defy the laws and tarnish
the character of their couiitry,by participating
in this trade, to the dispensation of justice e-
ven by foreign hands, the United States are
bound to remember that the power which en-
ables a court to try the guilty, authorizes them
also to proiiotince upon the fate of the inno-
cent; and that the very question of guilt or
innocence, is that which the protecting care
of their constitution has reserved for the citi-
zens of this Union, to the exclusive decision
of their own countrymen. This principle has
not been departed from by the statute which
has branded the slave trader with the name
and doomed him to the punishment ofa pirate.
The distinction between piracy by the law of
nations, and piracy by statute, is well known
and understood in Great Britain; and while
the former subjects the transgressor guilty of
it to the jurisdiction of any and every country
into which he may be brought, or wherein he
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 slave trader captured under the mutual
concession of the power to make the capture,
might be delivered over to the jurisdiction of
his own country. This arrangement would
not be liable to the _constitutional objection,
which must ever apply to the jurisdiction of
the mixed commissions‘, or of the admiralty
courts ofthe captor; and ifyoiir. note is to be
understood as presenting it in the character of
an alternative, to which your government is
disposed to accede, I am atithorized to say,
that the President considers it ‘as sufiieient to‘
remove the insuperable obstacle which had
precluded the’assent of the United States to
the former proposals of your government, re-
sulting frotii the character and compositions
of the tribunals, to whom the question ofguill
or innocence was to be committed. .
The objeciioris to the right of search, as in-
cident to the right of detention and capture,
are also in a very considerable degree l'elllOV-
ed, by the introduction of the principle, that
neither of them should be exercised, but im-
der the re'sponsibility ofthe captor, to the tri-
bunals ofthe captured party, in damages and
costs. This guard against the abuses of a
power so liable to abuse, would be indispensi-
ble ; but, ifthe provisions necessary for secur-
ing efiectually its pitctical operations, would
reduce the right itselfto a power merely noni-
iiial-, the stipulation of it in a treaty would
serve rather to niark the sacrifice of a great
and precious principle, than to attain the end
for which it would be given up.
In the objeclions heretofore disclosed to the
concession desired, ofthe mutual and qualifi-
ed right of search, the principal stress was
laid upon the repuguance which such a con-
cession would meet in the public feeling of
this country, and of those to whom its inter-
ests are entrusted in the departuieut of its
Government, the sanction of which is requir-
ed for the ratification oftreaties. The irrita-
ting tendency ofthe practice of search, and
the inequalities ofits probable operation,were
slightly noticed, and have been contested in
argument, or met by propositions of possible
palliatives, or remedies for anticipated abuses,
in your letter. But the source and founda-
tion ofall these objections, was, in our foriuer
correspondence, scarcely iiiemioned and nev -
er discussed. They consist in the nature of
the right ofsearch, at sea, which, as recogniz-
ed or tolerated by the usage ofnations, is a
right exclusively of war, never exercised, but
by an outrage upon the rights ofpcace. It is
an act analogous to that of searching the
dwelling-houses of individuals on the land.-—
The vessel of the navigator is his dwelling-
house; and like that, in the sentiment ofev-
ery people that cherishes the blessings of per-
sonal liberty and security, ought to be a satie-
tuary, inviolable to the hand of power, unless
upon the utmost unequivocal public necessity,
and under the most rigorous personal respon-
sibility of the intruder. Search at sea, as re-
cognized by all maritime nations, is confined
to the single object of fiudiiig and taking ccn-
traband ofwar. By the law of nature, when
two natioiiscoiiflict together in war, a third,
remaining neutra|,retains all its rights ofpeace,
and friendly intercourse with both. Eacli
belligerent, indeed, acquires, by war, the right
of preventing a third party from administering
to his enemy the direct and immediate mate-
rials 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 ofpower, which noth-
ing but necessity canjustify, inasmuch as it
cannot be exercised, but by carrying-tlie evils
of war into the abodes of peace ; and, by vis-
iting the innocent with some of the penalties
ofguilt. Aiiiotig the modern inaritiiue na-
tions, an usage has crept in, not founded upon
the law of nature, never universally adniitted,
often successfully rcsisled, and against which,
all have occasionally borne tcstnnony, by re-
uouncing it in treaties, ofextentling this prac-
tice 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 abus-
ive and wrongful extension of the search for
contraband; effected by the belligerent, be-
cause he was armed ; submitted to by the
neutral, because he was defenceless ; and ac-
quiesced in by his sovereign, for the sake of
preserving a remnant of peace, ratlier than
become liiiiiselfa party to the war. Having,
thus, occasionally, been practised by all, as
belligerents, and subuiitted to by all as neu-
trals, it has acquired the force of at) usage,
which, at the occurrence of every war, the
belligerent may enforce or reiinquisli, and to
which the neutral may suffer or rcsist,at their
respective options.
This search for, and seizure of,the property
of an enemy in the vessel ofa friend, is a ret-
ict of the barbarous warfare ofbarbarous ages;
the cruel, and for the most part, now explod-
cd system oi‘pri'vat.e war. As it concerns the
enemy himself, it is inconsistent with the init-
igated usage of modern wars, which respects
the private property of individuals on the limo‘.
As relates to the neutral, it is a violation of
his natural right to pursue, unmolesled, his
peaceful coiiiinercial intercourse with his
friend. Invidious as is its character, in both
these aspects, it has other esseinial character-
istics, equally obnoxious. It is an uncontrol-
led exercise of authority, by a man in arms 0-
ver a man without defence; by an ofiicer of
one nation over the citizen ofaiiotlier ; by a
man intent upon the annoyance of his enemy,
responsible for the act of search to no tribu-
nal, and always prompted to balance the dis-
appoiutiiient ofa fruitless search by the abus-
ive exercise of his power, and to punish the
neutral for the very clearness of his neutrality.
It has, in short, all the leatiires of unbridled
power, stimulated by hostile and unsocial pas-
sions. I forbear to enlarge upon the fur-
ther extension ofthis practice, by referring to
injuries which the United States experienced,
when neutral, in a case of vital importance;
because, in digesting a plan for the attain-
ment ofan 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 me interest in
question from necessity, it being one which
could not be lost sight ofin the present dis-
cussion. Such being the view taken of
the right of search, as recognized by the law
of nations, and exercised by belligerent pow-
ers, it is due to caiidour to state, that my gov-
eruinent has an insnperable objection to its
extension by treaty, in any uianner whatever,
lost it might lead to consequences still more
injurious to the United States, and especially
in the circumstance alluded to. That the
proposed extension will operate in time of
peace, and derive itssanction from‘ compact,
present no inducement - to its adoption. On
the contrary, they form strong objections to it.
Every extension ofthe right of search, on the
principles of that right, is disapproved. Iftlie
freedom of the sea is abridged by compact for
any new purpose, the example may lead to
other changes. And if its operations is ex-
tended to a time of peace, as well as of war, a
new system will be commenced for the domin-
ion of the sea, which may, eventually, espe-
3l3"°€‘-93 Ofpeace and of war, and ofrigbts afi-
plicable to each state.
The U. States have, on great consideration,
thoughtit 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 that class ofoffeiices;
allfl W319 by Pléfclng it there, we should more
efiectually accomplish the great object of sup-
pressing 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‘
ofthe right of search appear to be app|ica'o|e_
Piracy being an ofience against the human
race, has its well known incidents of capture
arid piinislinieiit by death, by the people and
tribunals of everycoiintry. By making this
Iade piratical, it is the nature of the crime
“'h|L'lI_ draws after it the necessary consequen-
cos of capture and punislnnent. 'I‘l,e United
35‘-llfif have done this, by an act ofCongress§
Iii lel«llll0n.l() iheniselves. They have also ef
llllcef their willingness, and expressed their
:&l*l],erl:t; the consent of.every other power;
T“ u y it would be made the law of nations:
i ten they are bound, by the injunctions
of their constitution, to execute it so fa, M‘
_ . _ _ ’
respects the punisliuient of their own citizens;
ll! lllf‘-II‘ own tribuiials.- They considerthein-
,5“l"°5v,l‘°""V°fo at liberty, until that C0ll.~t‘l)l
'5 °b“""e‘la l0 C0-ope.ate to a certain extent
V‘/lllt Other powers, to ensure a more completd
efiect to their respective acts; they placed
themselves, severally, on the same ground by
leglshiltve provisions. It is in this spirit, and
for this purpose, that I have made to you mg‘
P"”P°5|U0u under consideration.
15)’ {"“l“"£ ‘lie Slave Trade piratical, and
attaclur-g to it the punishment as well as the
odium incident to that’ crime, it is believed
that much has been done by the U States to
suppress it in their vessels and by their cm-
Z¢_t'I5. If your government would unite in
“"3 P°l"3.Ya It Is not doubted that the happiest
consequences would result from it. The ex.
ample of Great Britain, in a manner so deci-
sive, could not fail to attract the attention and
cominanil the respect of her European neigli.
bors. It is the opinion ofthe U. States, that
no measure, short of that proposed, will ac-
complish the object so much desired ; and if
is the earnest desire of my government, that
the government of his Britannia Majesty may
co-operate in carrying it into effect.
I pray you, Sir, ‘to accept Ilie renewed as-
surances of my distmguislied consideration.
_ J_onN QUINCY ADAMS.
The Right Hon. Stratford Canning.
. IIrII’RISONll‘lENT FOR DEBT.-—*Tllé follow-
mg excellent remarks on this subject we ex-
tract froiii a late Message of the Governor of
Delaware to the Legislature of that state: ,
I would, also, earnestly recommend to you_._
principle of justice and humanity should, in
an age like this, still reuiain sauctioiied by
the laws ofthe land, is truly a matter of sur-
prise and regret. It is a source of pleasure,
to observe the attention of some ofour sister
slates awakening to this subject. It is worthy
of our serious coiisideratioii, whether. upon
iliis subject also we will linger behind the age,
and still refuse to do homage to the spirit of
improvement that is moving over our land.
Pecuniary embarrassments are seldom the re-
sult ofmoral tiirpitude. They most frequent-
ly flow from causes to which the honorable
and npwright are equally exposed with the
worthless; and against vrliicli, often, no hu-
man prudence can guard. Your oivn obser-
vation will warrant me in the assertion that
ninety nine debtors out of a hundred are such
from iniprovidence or misforinre. It is diffi-
cult to perceive why, in the case ofthe debtor,
the benign maxim ofthe criminal law should
be reversed, and that ninety-nine innocent
persons should be forced to suffer, rather than
one guilty person should escape. Our law
relative to debtors is unjust, for innocence‘ and
guilt are treated with undiscriniinating sever-
ity. It is inhuman, for neither the weakness
of woman, nor the lielplessness of av,-ze is se-
cure from its operation—it is partial, for it
exempts the rich, and falls exclusively upon
the poor: the rich may always shelter them-
selves from force, the poor alone are the vic-
tims ofits power. It is in vain that we boast
of our personal liberty and our civil rights, if
the helpless, and the infirm, however honora-
ble or unfortunate, can thus, at any moment,
be imprisoned, at the will ofa merciless cred-
itor. Pecuniary obligations, too, are often
occasioned by the indulgence of the best feel-
ings of the human heart. They often pro-
ceed from the overflowings of kindness and
the warmth of friendship—-and surely such
feelings ought not to be sacrificed at the
shrine of avarice. To imprison for debt is,
in ef’fei:t, to tax our virtue for the gratification
of our vices. it seems calculated to promote
no good end. Ifa debtor has property and is
honest the law is useless : ifhe has property
and is a rogue no law will be ofany service :—
but. if he has really no property, the law is not
only useless, but oppressive and cruel. The
unhappy debtor, by being thus deprived of
personal liberty, is deprived ofthe only means
left him ofdischarging his debts. His only
prospect perhaps, is his labor and his personal
attention to business. This prospect impris
oninetit destroys ;—and it has often happened
that large families, whose daily subsistence
depended upon the personal labor and atten-
tion oftheir head, have thus by being deprived
ofthat head, by an unfeeling creditor, been
scattered and thrown upon the charity ofthe
public. The many exhibitions of hardship
which the prisons of our country frequently
present, will, it is confidently hoped,
your attention to this subject.
MILLI NEBY .
RS. M. A. SELLECK would inform
her customers, and the public in gene-
ral, that she has re-commenced her business
at her old stand, east -of the Bridge, where
may be found a general assortment of Goons
in her line of business, which she offers to her
customers as cheap as they can be obtained
elsewhere. The following com rise a part :.
One entire case ofLEG'HOI{N GIPSIES,
of the latest iuiportiition ; STRAW GIF-
SIES ; Imitation of Leghorn Straw HATS _:
Green, White, and Pink SILK HATS. of the
latest fashions ; Children's do. do. Also, an
cially by the abuses into which it may lead,
confound all distinction of time and circum-
Artificial Flowers, 8z.c. Sec.
Norwalk, April 52, 181$. Btf’
desire, that the change should become gene- ,
ilie abolisliinent ofviniprisuninent for debt.” -
7 V ' - . ‘
I hat a practice so obviously opposetl to every \
quicken~
elegant assortment of RIBBONS, suitable-
for Leglioi'n and Straw Gipsies; Banboxes,-
Norwalk Chronicler