stantially correct in all its parts, and we may now proceed, without further delay, to draw up the Treaty. Several of the articles for this purpose are already prepared and agreed, and our most convenient course will be to take and consider them singly. I would beg leave to recommend, that as we have excellent charts of the country through which the boundary, which failed of being settled by the Commissioners under the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Ghent, is partially marked, that it would be advisable to make good the delineation on those charts, which would spare to both parties the unnecessary expense of new commissioners and a new survey. In this case the only commission required would be to run the line on the boundary of Maine.

The stipulations for the greater facility of the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, and of two passages between the upper lakes, appear evidently desirable for general accommodation, and I cannot refuse the reciprocal claim made by you to render common the passage from Lake Erie into the Detroit River. This must be done by declaring the several passages in those parts free to both parties.

I should remark, also, that the free use of the navigation of the Long Sault passage on the St. Lawrence must be extended to below Barnhart's Island, for the purpose of clearing those rapids.

1 beg leave to repeat to you, sir, the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.

IT appears desirable that some explanation between us should be recorded by correspondence, respecting the 5th Article of the Treaty signed by us, this day, for the settlement of boundaries between Great Britain and the United States.

By that Article of the Treaty it is stipulated, that certain payments shall be made by the Government of the United States to the States of Maine and Massachusetts. It has of course been understood, that my negotiations have been with the Government of the United States, and the introduction of terms of agreement between the General Government and the States would have been irregular and inadmissible, if it had not been deemed expedient to bring the whole of these transactions within the purview of the Treaty. There may not be wanting analogous cases: to justify this proceeding, but it seems proper that I should have con-. firmed by you, that my Government incurs no responsibility for these engagements, of the precise nature and object of which I am uninformed, nor have I considered it necessary to make inquiry concerning them. I beg Sir, &c.,

!

(Signed)

1

ASHBURTON.

No. 12.

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.

My Lord,

Department of State, Washington, August 9, 1842.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this date, with respect to the object and intention of the 5th Article of the Treaty. What you say in regard to that subject is quite correct. It purports to contain no stipulation on the part of Great Britain, nor is any responsibility supposed to be incurred by it on the part of your Government.

I renew, &c.,

(Signed) DANIEL WEBSTER.

LETTER

FROM

LORD ASHBURTON TO MR. WEBSTER,

RESPECTING

THE MUTUAL SURRENDER OF PERSONS FUGITIVE FROM

JUSTICE.

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster.

Washington, August 9, 1842.

Sir, BY the 3rd Article of the Convention which I have this day signed with you, there is an agreement for the reciprocal delivery, in certain cases, of criminals fugitive from justice, but it becomes necessary that I should apprize you that this Article can have no legal effect within the dominions of Great Britain until confirmed by Act of Parliament. It is possible that Parliament may not be in session before the exchange of the ratifications of the Convention, but its sanction shall be asked at the earliest possible period, and no doubt can be entertained that it will be given. In Her Majesty's territories in Canada, where cases for acting under this Convention are likely to be of more frequent occurrence, the Governor-General has sufficient power under the authority of local legislation, and the Convention will there be acted upon so soon as its ratification shall be known; but it becomes my duty to inform you of the short delay which may possibly intervene in giving full effect to it, where the confirmation by Parliament becomes necessary for its execution.

I beg, Sir, &c., (Signed)

ASHBURTON.

F

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

LORD ASHBURTON AND MR. WEBSTER,

RESPECTING THE

CASE OF THE CREOLE, &c.

No. 1.

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.

My Lord,

Department of State, Washington, August 1, 1842. THE President has learned, with much regret, that you are not empowered by your Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the better security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters in passing between the United States and the Bahama Islands, and driven by such disasters into British ports. This is a subject which is deemed to be of great importance, and which cannot, on the present occasion, be overlooked.

Your Lordship is aware, that several cases have occurred within the last few years, which have caused much complaint. In some of these cases compensation has been made by the English Government, for the interference of the local authorities with American vessels having slaves on board, by which interference these slaves were set free. In other cases such compensation has been refused. It appears to the President to be for the interest of both countries, that the recurrence of similar cases in future, should be prevented as far as possible.

Your Lordship has been acquainted with the case of the "Creole," a vessel carried into the port of Nassau last winter, by persons who had risen upon the lawful authority of the vessel, and, in the accomplishment of their purpose, had committed murder on a person on board.

The opinions which that occurrence gave occasion for this Govern ment to express in regard to the rights and duties of friendly and civilized maritime States, placed by Providence near to each other, were well considered, and are entertained with entire confidence. The facts in the particular case of the "Creole" are controverted; positive and officious interference by the colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged on one side, and denied on the other.

It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of opinion as to the evidence in this case, as it at present exists; because the rights of individuals having rendered necessary a more thorough and a judicial investigation of facts and circumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is understood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, will render me more able than at this moment to present to the British Government a full and accurate view of the whole case. But it is my purpose and my duty to invite your Lordship's attention to the

1

general subject, and your serious consideration of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade of the United States, against unlawful annoyance and interruption, along this part of their shore.

The Bahama Islands approach the coast of Florida within a few leagues, and, with the coast, form a long and narrow channel, filled with innumerable small islands and banks of sand, and the navigation difficult and dangerous, not only on these accounts, but from the violence of the winds and the variable nature of the currents. Accidents are of course frequent, and necessity often compels vessels of the United States in attempting to double Cape Florida, to seek shelter in the ports of these islands. Along this passage the Atlantic States hold intercourse with the States on the gulf and the Mississippi, and through it the products of the valley of that river,-a region of vast extent and boundless fertility,find a main outlet to the sea in their destination to the markets of the world.

No particular ground of complaint exists as to the treatment which American vessels usually receive in these ports, unless they happen to have slaves on board; but in cases of that kind, complaints have been made, as already stated, of officious interference of the colonial authorities with the vessel, for the purpose of changing the condition in which these persons are by the laws of their own country, and of setting them free.

In the Southern States of this Union, slavery exists by the laws of the States and under the guarantee of the constitution of the United States, and it has existed in them from a period long antecedent to the time when they ceased to be British Colonies. In this state of things, it will happen that slaves will be often on board coasting vessels, as hands, as servants attending the families of their owners, or for the purpose of being carried from port to port. For the security of the rights of their citizens, when vessels having persons of this description on board, are driven by stress of weather or carried by unlawful force into British ports, the United States propose the introduction of no new principle into the law of nations. They require only a faithful and exact observance of the injunctions of that code, as understood and practised in modern

times.

Your Lordship observes, that I have spoken only of American vessels driven into British ports by the disasters of the seas, or carried in by unlawful force. I confine my remarks to these cases, because they are the common cases, and because they are the cases which the law of nations most emphatically exempts from interference. The maritime law is full of instances of the application of that great and practical rule, which declares that that which is the clear result of necessity, ought to draw after it no penalty and no hazard. If a ship be driven by stress of weather into a prohibited port, or into an open port with prohibited articles on board, in neither case is any forfeiture incurred. And what may be considered a still stronger case, it has been decided by eminent English authority, and that decision has received general approbation, that, if a vessel be driven by necessity into a port strictly blockaded, this necessity is good defence and exempts her from penalty.

A vessel on the high seas beyond the distance of a marine league from the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and subjected exclusively to the jurisdiction of that nation. If, against the will of her master or owner, she be driven or carried nearer to the land, or even into port, those who have or who ought to have control over her, struggling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, and so within the exclusive jurisdiction of her own Government, what reason or justice is there in creating a distinction between her rights and immunities in a position thus the result of absolute necessity, and the same rights and immunities before superior power had forced her out of her voluntary course?

But, my Lord, the rule of law and the comity and practice of nations, go much further than these cases of necessity, and allow even to a merchant-vessel coming into any open port of another country, voluntarily, for the purposes of lawful trade, to bring with her and keep over her, to a very considerable extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the