3d. But let him proceed. 'Of the unsettled matters between the United States and other powers, the most prominent are those which have for years been the subject of negociation with England, France, and Spain. The late periods at which our ministers to those governments left the United States, render it impossible, at this early day, to inform you of what has been done on the subjects with which they have been respectively charged.' How happened it that our claims on Mexico, against whom so much fretfulness has been manifested by the Executive since the battle of Jacinto, were not included in the above list? The delay of instructions for nearly eight months to our minister resident there, who being suitable to the President's taste was not recalled till his characteristic interference in the internal affairs of Mexico coerced it, afforded no such excuse as that alleged in the other cases? There is a lowering mystery in this matter of Mexican negociations that time must dispel, and I hope to do much towards it, when it becomes the subject proper of a future chapter.

4th. Now for an unction of mixed threat, flattery, and cajolement towards England, to give pliancy and balminess to her supposed irritations. With Great Britain, alike distinguished in peace and war, we may look forward to years of peaceful, honourable, and elevated competition. Every thing in the condition and history of the two nations is calculated to inspire sentiments of mutual respect, and to carry conviction to the minds of both, that it is their policy to preserve the most cordial relations. Such are my own views; and it is not to be doubted that such are also the prevailing sentiments of our constituents. Although neither time nor opportunity has been afforded for a full development of the policy which the present cabinet of Great Britain designs to pursue towards this country, I indulge the hope that it will be of a just and pacific character.' A most diplomatic tub to the whale!

5th. In this first annual General Jackson's course of remark was equally temporizing towards France, viz: 'From France, our ancient ally, we have a right to expect that justice which becomes the sovereign of a powerful, intelligent, and magnanimous people. The beneficial effects produced by the commercial convention of 1822, limited as are its provisions, are too obvious not to make a salutary impression upon the minds of those who are charged with the administration of her government. Should this result induce a disposition to embrace to their full extent, the wholesome principles which constitute our commercial policy, our minister to that Court WILL BE FOUND INSTRUCTED to cherish such a disposition, and to aid in conducting it to useful practical conclusions. The claims of our citizens for depredations upon their property, long since committed under the authority, and in many instances, by the express direction of the then existing government of France, remained unsatisfied; and must

therefore continue to furnish a subject of unpleasant discussion, AND POSSIBLE COLLISION between the two governments. I che rish, however, a lively hope, founded as well on the validity of those claims, and the established policy of all enlightened governments, as on the known integrity of the French monarch, that the injurious delays of the past will find redress in the equity of the future. Our minister has been instructed to press these demands on the French government with all the earnestness which is called for by their importance and irrefutable justice; and in a SPIRIT that will evince the respect which is due to THE

FEELINGS OF THOSE FROM WHOM THE SATISFACTION IS REQUI

RED! It is but too plain that this is the style of an old duellist and bully. Or, if it were not so obvious to all, at first, it became as glaring as the beams of an ardent furnace, in his subsequent threatening deportment towards that same ancient ally, after he had successfully 'circumvented her' in these negociations-for such was the boastful slang of the 'dirty official sheet' here, and the rest of THE party newspapers of the day, in glorifying the success of Mr. Rives' mission, giving him the injurious credit bythe-by, of this 'feat of circumvention,' which he disdained, and which actually belonged to the wire-workers of his mission, resident, and advising at the White House in Washington.

By way of showing in more perfect relief, the insincerity of General Jackson in the foregoing profession, (equivocal as they are,) of his confidence in the magnanimity and justice of our ancient ally, I will pass over to a short extract from his sixth annual message, which will exhibit in striking colours the rage he could permit himself to fall into, upon a mere delay of compliance with the terms of payment of her acknowledged dues to us-a transport of passion and impatience not even befitting a Shylock upon the absolute certainty of a great pecuniary loss, which, in this case was not in the remotest degree probable. But take first, the confident manner in which he anticipated a favourable result of the negociation, with the reiterated expression of liberal sentiments towards France, in his second message, viz: "The negociation with France has been conducted by our minister with zeal and ability, and in all respects to my entire satisfaction. Although prospects of a favourable termination was occasionally dimmed by counter pretensions to which the United States could not assent, he yet had strong hopes of being able to arrive at a satisfactory settlement, with the late government. The negociation has been renewed with the present authorities; and, sensible of the general and lively confidence of our citizens in the justice and magnanimity of REGENERATED FRANCE, I regret the more not to have it in my power yet to anounce the result so confidently anticipated.' Accordingly in the third annual message, he thus announced the success of the negociation, 'In my message at the opening of the last session of Congress, I expressed a confident hope that the justice of our claims

upon France, urged as they were with perseverance and signal ability by our minister there, would finally be acknowledged. This hope has been realized. A treaty has been signed which will immediately be laid before the Senate for its approbation; and which, containing stipulations that require legislative action,

MUST HAVE THE CONCURRENCE OF BOTH HOUSES BEFORE IT CAN BE CARRIED INTO EFFECT.' After the ratification of the Senate, then, it appears General Jackson knew that the legislative action of both houses of Congress might delay its fulfilment and so might the same ceremony in the French chambers of legislation, subsequently have that effect there. Had such been the result here, would 'regenerated France' have desired to take General Jackson by the throat? How far the following superfluous self-gratulation and bombast, in the next passage of the same message contributed, with the official paper's boast of 'circumvention,' tended to produce the subsequent delay of the French legislation upon the subject of fulfilling the stipulations of the treaty I shall not stop to calculate, or to conjecture; but shall proceed now to show how egregiously General Jackson laughed on the other side of his mouth, when adverting to this subject in his sixth annual message. He says

"The history of the accumulated and unprovoked aggressions upon our commerce, committed by authority of the existing

*

*THE HISTORY OF THE ACCUMULATED AND UNPROVOKED WRONGS UPON OUR COMMERCE. It will probably be gratifying to those readers who are not already conversant with the subject, to have here subjoined, a concise view of the very important theme of NEUTRAL RIGHTS, in regard to international commerce between neutrals on the one hand, and belligerents on the other, the infringements of which by the latter, are the fruitful sources of vexatious complaints, and negociations, successful or abortive-oftener resulting in collisions, a partial state of war, or formal declarations thereof, waged with the vengeful purpose even of mutual extermination, for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confiscations, or destruction of the vessels, cargoes, or other property of the former, or reciprocally, of both the parties belligerent and neutral; and which calls so eloquently and emphatically on all nations to establish an intermediate or common tribunal of arbitrationt to adjust them, without having recourse to dilatory negociation or to the ultima ratio regum. Such a summary, I flatter myself will be the more appropriate here, by way of giving the general reader an insight into the chief causes of disturbance between the United States and the various powers of England, France, Spain, and most other European nations, as well as our sister American Republics, viz:

"The fundamental principle of NEUTRAL RIGHTS is, that free ships make free goods." But it is proper always to bear in mind, that the correlative inference is not true, that enemy ships make enemy goods;' for example: The stipulation in a treaty that free [or neutral] ships make free goods, does not imply the converse proposition, that enemy ships make enemy goods.'-[9 Cranch, 388, Supreme Court, U. S. 1815.]

'To constitute a blockade so as to affect a policy of insurance, by a violation of it, there must be an actual existing force before the port at the time it is entered. The

WHICH CALLS SO ELOQUENTLY AND EMPHATICALLY ON ALL NATIONS TO ESTABLISH A TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, &c.-Great Britain has already done much by her individual proffers of arbitration, to prepare all nations for such a tribunal, which a French monarch had the credit of first suggesting, and which has been renewed by the committee of foreign relations at the last session of Congress. Such a tribunal might be entitled THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF COMMERCIAL NATIONS? SEE APPENDIX (E.)

government of France, between the years 1800 and 1817, has been rendered too painfully familiar to Americans to make its repetition either necessary or desirable. It will be sufficient here to remark that there has, for many years, been scarcely a single

animus revertendi of an obsidiary fleet does not continue the blockade; nor is the entry of a neutral, after being warned, a breach of his neutrality, if blockading force be not before the port.'—[Vol. 2, Caines' New York Rep. page 1, Sup. Court of N. Y. 1804.

'Ships of war sailing under the authority of their government, in time of peace, have a right to approach other vessels at sea, for the purpose of ascertaining their real character, so far as the same can be done without the exercise of the right of visitation and search, which does not exist in time of peace.'-[Vol. 11, Wheaton, page 43.

A trade exclusively confined to the subjects of one country is purely national, and must follow the situation of that country as to peace or war, and be deemed hostile or neutral accordingly; and it is immaterial whether the shipment be made in time of peace or war.-In time of war property cannot change its character in transitu.-[1 Gallison, 563, Circuit Court, U. S. 1813.

A special order of the sovereign, though contrary to the law of nations, justifies he captors in all tribunals of prize.'-[2 Gallison, 334, Circuit Court, U. S. 1815. 'Provisions become contraband, when destined to a port of naval equipment of an enemy, or for the supply of his army.'-[Ib. 335.

'A commission to capture the enemy's property, extends to all neutral property seized in violating neutral duties; for in such case the property is deemed quasi enemy's property.'-[2, Ib. 339, Ct. Ct. U. S. 1815.

"The courts of this country have no jurisdiction to redress any supposed TORTS committed on the high seas, upon the property of its citizens by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign and friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of our neutrality.'-[1 Wheaton, 238, Sup. Court, U. States, 1816.

The exclusive cognizance of prize questions belongs to the capturing power. This is a consequence of the equality and absolute independence of sovereign states, on the one hand, and of the duty to observe uniform, impartial, neutrality, on the other. Under the former, every sovereign becomes the acknowledged arbiter of his own justice, and cannot consistently with his dignity stoop to appear at the bar of other nations to defend the acts of his commissioned agents, much less the injustice and legality of those rules of conduct which he prescribes to them. Under the latter, neutrals are bound to withhold their interference between the captor and the captured; to consider the fact of possession as conclusive evidence of the right. Under this, it is, also, that it becomes unlawful to divest a captor of possession, even of the ships of a citizen, when seized under a charge of having trespassed upon belligerent rights.'-[1 Wheaton, 254, 255.

[But] that the mere fact of seizure as a prize does not, of itself, oust the neutral admiralty court of its jurisdiction, is evident from this fact, that there are acknowledged cases in which the courts of a neutral may interfere to divest possession, to wit: those in which her own right to stand neutral, is invaded. And there is no case in which the court of a neutral may not claim the right of determining whether the capturing vessel be, in fact, the commissioned cruiser of the belligerent power. Without the exercise of jurisdiction thus far, in all cases, the power of the admiralty would be inadequate to afford protection from piratical capture.'-[1 Wheaton, page 258.

The president of the United States, is the sole organ of the nation, in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him. He possesses the whole executive power. He holds and directs the force of the nation: of consequence any act to be performed by the force of the nation is to be performed through him.-He is charged to execute the laws. A treaty is declared to be a law. He must then execute a treaty, where he, and he alone, possesses the means of executing it.' [That is, supposing the treaty has been rendered complete by the proper legislative acts that may be necessary to its execution.]-[5 Wheaton, Appendix, page 26.

"The British ORDERS IN COUNCIL, and the French DECREES, which affected our neutral rights [as above laid down] and preceded the war of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States, were as follows, to wit:

administration of the French government by whom the justice and legality of the claims of our citizens to indemnity were not, to a very considerable extent, admitted, and yet near a quarter of a century has been wasted in ineffectual negociations to secure it.'-'After the most deliberate and thorough examination of the whole subject, a treaty between the two governments was concluded and signed at Paris on the 4th of July, 1831, by which it was stipulated that 'the French government, in order to liberate itself from all the reclamations preferred against it by citizens of the United States for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confiscations, or destruction of their vessels, cargoes, or other property, engages to pay a sum of 25,000,000 millions of francs to the United States, who shall distribute it among those entitled, in the manner and according to the rules it shall determine;'

'ON THE 16TH OF MAY, 1806, the British government issued an ORDER IN COUNCIL, declaring the coast included between the Elbe and Brest in a state of blockade :

'ON THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER, 1806, the French emperor issued his BERLIN DECREE, declaring Great Britain and her dependencies in a state of blockade :

'ON THE 7TH OF JANUARY, 1807, the British government issued an ORDER IN COUNCIL, prohibiting neutral ships from carrying on trade from one enemy's port to another, including France and her allies:

'ON THE 11TH OF NOVEMBER, 1807, the British ORDERS IN COUNCIL were issued, which declared the continental ports from which British ships were excluded, in a state of blockade, (except in cases of ships cleared out from Great Britain, whose cargoes had paid a transit duty,) and rendered liable to condemnation all neutral ships, with their cargoes, trading from the ports of France or her allies, and their dependencies, or having on board certificates of origin:

ON THE 7TH OF DECEMBER, 1807, the French emperor issued his MILAN DECREE, declaring that any neutral ships which should have touched at a British port, or paid a transit duty to the British government, or submitted to be searched by British cruisers, should be liable to confiscation:

'ON THE 22D OF DECEMBER, 1807, the AMERICAN EMBARGO was laid :

'ON THE 1ST OF MARCH, 1809, the EMBARGO was removed, and a NON-INTERCOURSE Substituted with both France and England:

'ON THE 19TH OF APRIL, 1809, a NEGOCIATION was concluded by Mr. Erskine, in consequence of which the trade with Great Britain was renewed on the 10th of June:

'ON THE 26TH OF APRIL, 1809, a British ORDER IN COUNCIL was issued, modifying the former blockade, which was henceforth to be confined to ports under the governments of Holland (as far north as the river Ems) and France, together with the colonies of both, and all ports of Italy included between Orbitello and Pesara : 'ON THE 10TH OF AUGUST, 1809, the NON-INTERCOURSE with Great Britain again took place, in consequence of Mr. Erskine's arrangement not being ratified: ON THE 1ST OF MAY, 1810, the TRADE with both Great Britain and France was OPENED, under a law of Congress, that whenever either power should rescind its ORDERS OF DECREES the President should issue a proclamation to that effect; and in case the other party should not within three months equally withdraw its orders or decrees, that the non-importation act should go into effect with respect to that power: 'ON THE 2D OF NOVEMBER, 1810, the President issued his PROCLAMATION, declaring the BERLIN and MILAN DECREES to be so far withdrawn as no longer to affect the neutral rights of America:

'And the ORDERS IN COUNCIL not being rescinded :—

'ON THE 2D OF FEBRUARY, 1811, the IMPORTATION of British goods and the ADMISSION of British ships into America were PROHIBITED:

'ON THE 4TH OF APRIL, 1812, an EMBARGO was laid in the United States: and— 'ON THE 18TH OF JUNE FOLLOWING, [1812,] the UNITED STATES declared war against GREAT BRITAIN.'-[1 WHEATON, PAGE 278, 279, and Elliot's American Diplomatic Code, vol. 2, page 271, 272; published, Washington, 1834.