Whilst just confidence is felt in the judiciary of the States, yet this government ought to be competent in itself for the fulfilment of the high duties which have been devolved upon it under the organic law by the States themselves."

Speaking with approbation of the prompt release of "one Gro. gan" by the Canadian authorities, the President regretted that he could not report an equally satisfactory conclusion of the Caroline case; the British Government having made no atonement for the wrong done to the territory of the United States. If the owner of the vessel were proved to have acted in conjunction with "those who were in the occupancy of Navy Island," it would bar his claim for indemnification; but that would not touch the higher question of the territorial inviolability of the Union, the invasion of which could only be justified by the most pressing emergency. He made no doubt that the British Government would see the propriety of renouncing the precedent which it had set in the affair at Schlosser. On the right of search of ships bearing the flag of the Union, as suspected slavers, Mr. Tyler made no concession; at the same time he called upon Congress to give greater force and efficacy to the laws for the suppression of the slave-trade. He stated that he had no progress to report in the Boundary question. He next turned to the other foreign affairs of the Union, expressing a warm interest in the welfare of Texas. The war in Florida had been prosecuted with unabated activity, and seemed to approach a speedy termination. Mr. Tyler then took a review of the finances and financial state of the country. On the

1st of January there would be a deficiency to provide for of 627,557 dollars. Of the loan of 62,000,000 dollars authorized by Congress, only 5,432,726 had been taken up. He recommended "moderate counsels" in revising the tariff; and laid down the principle, that so long as the duties shall be laid with distinct reference to the wants of the treasury, no wellfounded objection can exist against them." On the resumption question he did not speak very distinctly; but expressed an opinion, that it would be well" that every bank not possessing the means of resumption should follow the example of the late United States Bank of Pennsylvania, and go into liquidation, rather than by refusing to do so to continue embarrassments in the way of solvent institutions, thereby augmenting the difficulties incident to the present condition of things." He adhered to his veto of the two "fiscal agent" bills of last session; but gave intimation of a plan of the kind with which the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared, "subordinate in all respects to the will of Congress directly, and to the will of the people indirectly;" separating the purse from the sword, and denying to the President all but very limited control over the officers by whom it was to be carried out.

"It contemplates the establishment of a Board of Control at the seat of government, with agencies at prominent commercial points, or wherever else Congress shall direct, for the safe keeping and disbursement of the public monies; and a substitution, at the option of the public creditor, of treasury notes in lieu of gold and silver. It proposes to limit the issue to an

amount not to exceed 15,000,000 dollars, without the express sanction of the legislative power. It also authorizes the receipt of individual deposits of gold and silver to a limited amount, and the granting certificates of deposits divided into such sums as may be called for by the depositors. It proceeds a step further, and authorizes the purchase and sale of domestic bills and drafts, resting on a real and substantial basis, payable at sight, or having but a short time to run, and drawn on places not less than one hundred miles apart; which authority, except in so far as may be necessary for government purposes exclusively, is only to be exerted upon the express condition that its exercise shall not be prohibited by the State in which the agency is situated. In order to cover the expenses incident to the plan, it will be authorized to receive moderate premiums for certificates issued on deposits, and on bills bought and sold; and thus, as far as its dealings extend to furnish facilities to commercial intercourse at the lowest possible rates, and to subduct from the earnings of industry the least possible sum. It uses the State banks at a distance from the agencies, as auxiliaries, without imparting any power to trade in its name."

gress should regulate and restrain the power of the President to remove public officers; since that power acts as a stimulus to officeholders and office-hunters in the elections.

At the same time that the message was delivered, the correspondence between Lord Palmerston, Lord Aberdeen, and Mr. Stevenson, the late Minister for the United States in London, respecting the question of the Right of Search was laid before Congress. It is very voluminous, but interesting from the importance of the principles of international law discussed between these statesmen. The nature of the dispute will be best understood from Mr. Stevenson's own account of it.

"The Government of Great Britain, with that of other nations, regarding the African slave-trade as a great evil, united in measures for its abolition. For that purpose laws were passed and treaties concluded, giving to the vessels of each of the contracting parties the mutual right of search, under certain limitations.

Independent of these treaties, and under the principles of public law, this right of search could not be exercised. The United States were invited to become a party to these treaties; but, for reasons which they deemed satisfactory, and growing out of the peculiar character of their institutions and systems of government, they declined doing so. They deemed it inexpedient, under any modification or in any form, to yield the right of having their vessels searched or interfered with in time of peace upon the high seas.

"In the meantime some of the Powers who were parties to these treaties, and others who refused

to become so, continued to prosecute their slave traffic; and to enable them to do so with more effect they resorted to the use of the flags of other nations, but more particularly that of the United States. To prevent this, and enforce her treaties, Great Britain deemed it important that her cruizers in the African seas should have the right of detaining and examining all vessels navigating those seas, for the purpose of ascertaining their national character. Against this practice the government of the United States protested, and the numerous cases out of which the present discussion has arisen, became subjects of complaint and negotiation between the two governments."

A correspondence on the subject commenced between Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston, which was continued with Lord Aberdeen, when the latter succeeded to the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Palmerston had written in one of his official notes as follows:

"The undersigned begs leave to state to Mr. Stevenson, in reply to the remarks contained in his last note, that Her Majesty's Government do not pretend that Her Majesty's naval officers have any right to search American merchantmen met with in time of peace at sea; but there is an essential and fundamental difference between searching a vessel and detaining her papers to see if she is legally provided with documents entitling her to the protection of any country, and especially of the country whose flag she may have hoisted at the time. For though, by common parlance, the word 'flag' is used to express the test of nationality, and though, accord

ing to that acceptation of the word, Her Majesty's Government admit that British cruisers are not entitled in time of peace to search merchant vessels sailing under the American flag, yet Her Majesty's Government do not mean thereby to say that a merchantman can exempt herself from search by merely hoisting a piece of bunting with the United States emblems and colours upon it: that which Her Majesty's Government mean is, that the rights of the United States flag exempt a vessel from search when that vessel is provided with papers entitling her to wear that flag, and proving her to be United States property, and navigated according to law."

And again :

"The cruisers employed by Her Majesty's Government for the suppression of the slave-trade must ascertain, by inspection of the papers, the nationality of vessels met with by them under circumstances which justify a suspicion that such vessels are engaged in the slave-trade, in order that, if such vessels are found to belong to a country which has conceded to Great Britain the mutual right of search, they may be searched accordingly; and that if they be found to belong to a country which, like the United States, has not conceded that mutual right, they may be allowed to pass on free and unexamined, and so consummate their intended iniquity."

Against these principles Mr. Stevenson, in a letter to Lord Aberdeen, dated September 10, 1841, strongly protests, and quotes the authority of Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell), to show that the slave-trade is not piracy, nor cognizable under the law of nations

"The question is not whether

the power asserted might be necessary or expedient, but whether any such power exists. It is incumbent, then, upon Her Majesty's Government to show upon what principles of justice and right it claims the power of deciding upon the right of an independent nation to navigate the ocean in time of peace; and this, too, for the purpose of executing treaties to which such nation is not a party, and consequently not bound. The signal error of Lord Palmerston is in assuming the necessity and expediency of the power as proof of its existence. Was such a power ever before asserted in the manner or to the extent which is now done? On the contrary, has not the right of visitation and search been always regarded as exclusively one of a belligerent character?

"In relation to the conduct of other nations, who seek to cover their infamous traffic by the fraudulent use of the American flag, the government of the United States cannot be responsible. It has taken the steps which it deemed best to protect its flag as its character from abuse, and will follow it up by such other measures as may appear to be called for."

Lord Aberdeen in his reply states, that he "is the last person who would presume to question the authority of the distinguished jurist to whom Mr. Stevenson has referred. But Mr. Stevenson will

recollect that the judgment of Lord Stowell was delivered in the case of a French vessel which had actually been captured, and was condemned by a British tribunal. The sentence was reversed by Lord Stowell in the year 1817. At that period Great Britain had no reason to presume that the slave-trade was regarded as cri

minal by the whole civilized world, or that all nations had united their efforts for its suppression. And, even if such had been the case, it would have been very far from affording any justification of the sentence reversed. But the undersigned must observe that the present happy concurrence of the states of Christendom in this great object not merely justifies, but renders indispensable, the right now claimed and exercised by the British Government. The undersigned readily admits that to visit and search American vessels in time of peace, when that right of search is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, and a violation of national dignity and independence. But no such right is asserted.

But

"The undersigned renounces all pretension, on the part of the British Government, to visit and search American vessels in time of peace. Nor is it as American that such vessels are ever visited. it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to apprehend their illegal character.

"In certain latitudes, and for a particular object, the vessels referred to are visited, not as Ame rican, but either as British vessels engaged in an unlawful traffic, and carrying the flag of the United States for a criminal purpose, or as belonging to states which have by treaty conceded to Great Britain the right of search, and which right it is attempted to defeat by fraudulently bearing the protecting flag of the Union; or, finally, they are visited as piratical outlaws,

possessing no claim to any flag or nationality whatever.

"The undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such visit should lead to the proof of the American origin of the vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave-trade, exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other implements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortuate beings on board, no British officer could interfere further.

"He might give information to the cruisers of the United States, but it would not be in his power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking."

Mr. Stevenson rejoins at considerable length, and amongst other things says:- "With the vessels of other nations, whether sailing under their own or another flag, the government of the United States can have no authority or desire to interfere. The undersigned, therefore, did not mean to be understood as denying to Great Britain, or any other nation, the right of seizing their vessels or punishing their subjects for any violation of their laws or treaties, provided, however, it should be done without violating the principles of public law, or the rights of other nations. Nor are such the consequences which can fairly be deduced from the argument which he had the honour of addressing to Lord Aberdeen, and which his Lordship seems so greatly to have misapprehended. Great Britain has the undoubted right, and so have all other nations, to detain and examine the vessels of their own subjects, whether slavers or not, and whether with or without a flag purporting to be that of the United States; but, in doing this,

it must be borne in mind that they have no colour of right, nor will they be permitted to extend such interference to the vessels or citizens of the United States sailing under the protection of the flag of their country.

"If Great Britain or any other nation cannot restrain the slave traffic of their own people upon the ocean without violating the rights of other nations and the freedom of the seas, then indeed the impunity of which Lord Aberdeen speaks, will take place. This may be deplored, but it cannot be avoided. But Lord Aberdeen asserts that it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and he believed of all the navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real character of merchant vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to apprehend their illegal character. Now, the undersigned must be excused for doubting whether any such practice as that which Lord Aberdeen supposes, certainly not to the extent now claimed, has ever prevailed in times of peace. In war the right of visitation is practised, under the limitations authorised by the laws of nations, but not in peace.

"The undersigned must, after the most careful consideration of the arguments advanced in Lord Aberdeen's note, repeat the opinion which he has heretofore expressed, that if a power, such as that which is now asserted by Her Majesty's Government, shall be enforced, not only without consent, but in the face of a direct refusal to concede it, it can be regarded in no other light by the Government of the United States than a violation of national rights and sovereignty, and the incontestable principles of international law.