of the mixed commission, or 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 the right of search, as incident to the right of detention 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. This guard against the abuses of a power so liable to abuse, would be indispensable; but, if the provisions necessary for securing effectually its practical operation, would reduce the right itself to a power merely nominal, the stipulation of it in a treaty would serve rather to mark the sacrifice of a great and precious principle, than to attain the end for 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 interests are entrusted in the department of its Government, the sanction of which is required for the ratification of treaties. The irritating tendency of the practice of search, and the inequalities of its probable operation, were slightly noticed, and have been contested in argument, or met by propositions of possible palliatives, or remedies for But the source and foundation of all these anticipated abuses, in your letter. objections, was, in our former correspondence, scarcely mentioned, and never discussed. They consist in the nature of the right of search, at sea, which, as recognised 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 dwelling-houses 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 liberty and security, ought to be a sanctuary, inviolable to the hand of power, unless upon the most unequivocal public necessity, and under the most rigoSearch at sea, as recognised rous personal responsibility of the intruder. 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 intercourse with both. Each belligerent, indeed, acquires, by war, the right of preventing a third party from administering to his enemy 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 be exercised, but by carrying the evils of war into the abodes of peace, and by visiting the innocent with some 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, and 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 he was armed; submitted to by the neutral, because he was defenceless; and acquiesced in by his 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 the occurrence of every war, the belligerent may en force 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 the barbarous warfare of 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 the 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 the 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 hostile and unsocial passions.

I forbear to enlarge upon the further extension of this 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 attainment of an object, which both nations have equally at het, 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 recognised 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 United States, and especially in the circumstance alluded to. That the proposed extension 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 of 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, a new 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 United 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 that class 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 piratical, it is the nature of the crime which draws after it the necessary consequences of capture and punishment. The United States have done this, by an act of Congress, in relation to themselves. They have also evinced their willingness, and expressed their desire, that the change should become general, by the consent of every other Power, whereby it would be made the law of nations. Till then, they are bound, by the injunctions of their Constitution, to execute it, so far as respects the 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 Powers, to 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, and for this purpose, that I have made to you the 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 that much has been done by the United States, to suppress it, in their vessels, and by their citizens. If your Government would unite in this poliey, it is not doubted that the happiest consequences would result from it. The example of Great Britain, in a manner so decisive, could not fail to attract the attention, and command the respect, of all her European neighbors. It is the opinion of the United States, that no measure, short of that proposed, will accomplish the object so much desired; and it is the earnest desire of my Government that the Government of his Britannic Majesty may co-operate in carrying it into effect.

I pray you, sir, to accept the renewed assurances of my distinguished consideration.

The Right Hon. STRATFORD CANNING,

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary

from Great Britain.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Nelson, dated

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"WASHINGTON, 28th April, 1823.

"A resolution of the House of Representatives, at the last session of Congress, requests the President to enter upon, and to prosecute, from time to time, such negotiations with the several maritime Powers of Europe and America as he may deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the law of nations, by the consent of the civilized world. You will take an early opportunity to make known this disposition to the Spanish Government; communicating to them copies of the fourth and fifth sections of the act of 3d March, 1819, which declares this traffic piratical when pursued by citizens of the United States; and you will express the willingness of the American Government to enter into negotiations for the purpose of declaring it so, by the common consent of nations."

Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Rodney, dated

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"WASHINGTON, 17th May, 1823. "A resolution of the House of Representatives, at the late session of Congress, requests the President of the United States to enter upon, and prosecute, from time to time, such negotiations with the several maritime Powers of Europe and America as he may deem expedient for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the law of nations, by the consent of the civilized world.

"In pursuance of the object proposed by this resolution, you will communicate to the Government of Buenos Ayres, copies of the several acts of Congress for the suppression of the slave trade, of the 20th of April, 1818; (U. S. Laws, vol. 6, page 325;) 3d March, 1819, (page 435;) and of 15th May, 1820, (page 529;) pointing their attention, particularly, to the fourth and fifth sections of the last, which subject to the penalties of piracy every citizen of the United States guilty of active participation in the African slave trade. The adoption of this principle in the legislative code of all the maritime nations, would, of itself, probably, suffice for the suppression of the trade. But, as it would yet not authorize the armed vessels of any one nation to capture those of another, engaged in the trade, a stipulation to that effect might be agreed to, by treaty, conditioned that the captor shall deliver over the captured party to the tribunals of his own country for trial; to which should be added, some guard of responsibility upon the capturing officer, to prevent the abusive exercise of his power."

Extract from the General Instructions to Richard C. Anderson, appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Colombia, dated

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"WASHINGTON, May 27, 1824. "A resolution of the House of Representatives, at the late session of Congress, requests the President of the United States to enter upon, and to prosecute, from time to time, such negotiations with the several maritime Powers of Europe and America as he may deem expedient for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the law of nations, by the consent of the civilized world.

"In pursuance of this object, you will communicate to the Colombian Government copies of the several acts of our Congress for the suppression of the slave trade, of the 20th of April, 1818, (U. S. Laws, vol. vi. p. 325,) of 3d March, 1819, (p. 435,) and of 15th May, 1820, (p. 529,) pointing their attention particularly to the fourth and fifth sections, of the last, which subject to the penalties of piracy every citizen of the United States guilty of active participation in the African slave trade. The adoption of this principle in the legislative code of all the maritime nations, would, of itself, probably, suffice for the suppression of the trade; but, as it would yet not authorize the armed vessels of any one nation to capture those of another, engaged in the trade, a stipulation to that effect may be agreed to by the treaty, conditioned that the captor shall deliver over the captured party to the tribunals of his own country for trial; to which should be added some guard of responsibility upon the capturing officer, to prevent the abusive exercise of his powers."

Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, dated

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

"WASHINGTON, June 24, 1823.

"A resolution of the House of Representatives, almost unanimously adopted, at the close of the last session of Congress, requested the President of the United States to enter upon, and to prosecute, from time to time, such negotiations with the several maritime Powers of Europe and America as he may deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy, under the law of nations, by the consent of the civilized world.

"At the two preceding sessions of Congress, committees of the House had proposed a resolution, expressed in more general terms, that 'the President of the United States be requested to enter into such arrangements as he may deem suitable and proper, with one or more of the maritime Powers of Europe, for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade;' and this resolution had, in each case been the conclusion of a report, recommending that the United States should accede to the proposal of a mutual and qualified concession of the right of search. The sentiments of the committee were, in this respect, different from those which had been expressed by the Executive Department of the Government, in its previous correspondence with that of Great Britain. No decision, by the House of Representatives, was made upon these resolutions, proposed at the preceding sessions; but, upon the adoption of that which did pass, at the last session, it was well ascertained that the sentiments of the House, in regard to the right of search, coincided with those of the Executive: for they explicitly rejected an amendment which was moved to the resolution, and which would have expressed an opinion of the House favorable to the mutual concession of that right.

You have been fully informed of the correspondence between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain, concerning the suppression of the slave trade, heretofore; and have been from time to time effectually instrumental to it yourself. You are aware of the grounds upon which the proposals, on the part of Great Britain, that the United States should accede to the stipulations similar to those which she had succeeded in obtaining from Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, were on our part declined.

"The subject was resumed by the British minister residing here, Mr. S. Canning, a short time before the decease of the Marquis of Londonderry. It was suggested, that, since the total disappearance of the British and American flags, as well as of those of the nations which had consented to put the execution of their laws against the trade under the superintendence of British naval officers, it continued to flourish under that of France; that her laws, though in word and appearance equally severe in proscribing the traffic, were so remiss in the essential point of execution, that their effect was rather to encourage than to suppress it; and the American Government was urged to join in friendly representations to that of France, by instructing the minister of the United States at Paris to concur in those which the British ambassador at that court had been charged with making, to ensure a more vigilant fulfilment of the prohibitory laws. This invitation, at that time given only in oral conference, was also declined, from an impres