TERMS OF PUBLICATION. S 3 00 per annum. In advance—Or' 1 . •'> ;■ £3 50, U not paid within the year. No subscription taken for a less term than six months, and no discontinuance permitted until ail arrearages are paid. A failure to notify a discontinuance at the expiration of aferm, will ■be considered a new engagement. Advertisements gl 00 per square for the first three insertions, and twenty five cents for every subsequent one. ■ . ’ MB. BUCHANAN’SSPEECH* IN SENATE. Thursday, June 10, 1841, Mr. RIVES once more renewed Ids mo tion that so much of the President’s message as relates to our foreign affairs be referred to (he Committee on Foreign Affairs. . Mr. BUCHANAN thereupon rose and addressed the Senate, observing that -when he had first read the correspondence between the British Minister, Mr. Fox, and the A incrican Secretary of State, he had at once determined to make, upon the first fit op portunity, some observations upon that cor ' respondence in the face of the Senate and of the country. He regretted that, in find ing a fit opportunity, there had,_contrary to his own inclinations, been so much delay; but having at length found it, he would ac complish his original purpose, and would do “it with as much brevity as possible; premis ing however, that he should not have thought of such a proceeding upon this mere motion of reference, had not the example been set and a precedent established at the last ses sion of Congress by the present Secretary of State. . lie must be permitted to make one re mark by way of preface: and that was, that ifhe knew himself, he was not in this matter,'by.any thing like-party political feeling. He trusted his.construction of some portions of the correspondence in question might prove Jncorrccl; for though he ac knowledged himself to be a party, man and , strongly influenced hy party feeling,-it had been Ids endeavor never to cany that fceK ing with him into the Committee on Foreign Relations, (of which he had for many years been a member,) aiid he trusted that he had given sufficient evidence of this by his course (. "abroad, ' required' that sonic commentary should be ■- made on these papers,-.he-hady upon reading them, determined, at once, that that com mentary should be made by him without" fear, but with respectful regard to the feel ings of all parties. - . He had beeir asked, what objection could be made to .the letter of. the 2dlh of April "" last, lately published, from Mr. Webster,- cm- Secretary of Slate, to Air. Fox? There was little, indeed:—much, very much, .that it contained, had lijs cordial approbation; but, unfortunately, that letter had little or nothing to do*with the substance of the mat ter. It did not make its appearance until nearly six weeks after the important busi ness between the two Governments had * been transacted. Jt was the letter of, the British Minister of the 12th of March; and the instructions of the Secretary of State to the Attorney General of the United States, of the 15th of the same month, which con tained the true merits of the case. It was that letter of instructions, a copy of which bad doubtless been communicated to the British Minister, and had been, openly-re ferred to in the British Parliament; it was these instructions, especially, which, lay at the root df-the question, On these two pa pers of the 13th and 15th March, pqblic o pinion had been formed and must be formed as well in England asrhere; and the Secre tary’s last letter which came limping along six weeks after, however just and however eloquent it might be, could exert but little or no influence either in Europe or in this country. To understand the merits of the case a brief recapitulation of the facts was neces sary. A .rebellion, said Mr. Bi or, if yqu please, an attempt jit revolution, existed in * Canada; during the course of which the in surgents took possession of Navy Island, in the Niagara river. A British militia force of two thousand men was embodied at Chip pewa, on the Canada side of the river. The American steamboat Caroline, after having carried provisions to, the insurgents on Na vy Island, (fur I believe that was the fact,) together with probably, a singlecannon, lay at anchor, after her trip, fastened to the wharf at Schlosser, a small village notori ously within the jurisdiction of the United States, under the sacred mgis of our protec tion, And that country must be recreant to itself and to its citizens, which would not until the very lust, maintain and vindicate its own exclusive sovereignty over its own soil against all'foreign aggression.. There lay this vessel in American waters, ’ under the guardianship of. our sovereignty and of the American flag; but these afforded her no protection. What happened on the night of the 29th of December, 1837? Col onel Allan McNab, a name famous in story, was in command of the body’'of militia at Chippewa. Under his auspices, a Captain Drew, of the British navy, who, I believe, has since been pensioned for his’gallant ex ploit, undertook to raise - a body of volun teers, and, by way of characterizing the na ture of the service they were to perform, declared that he wanted fifty or sixty des perate fellows, who would be ready to fol low him to the devil. Under the authority of this Colonel McNab, now Sir Allan Mc- Nab, (for T understand he has since been knighted by Queen Victoria,) this body of men, with Captain Drew at their head, pas sed down the Niagara river at the dead hour of midnight, without previous notice, and while the people on board .the lay reposing under the protection of American laws, and madc an attack ou.unarmed men, who were private-citizens, not connected in any way with the resistance to British au thority, and murdered at least one of their number - within the. American territory.— These barbarians, regardless of-the lives of those who may have remained on board* un moored the boat; towed her into the middle of the river," where a swift- and irresistible current soon hurried her down the falls: of Niagara, and to-this hour it is net known how many American citizens perished bn that fatal .night. This is no fancy picture. : Nbw, as to the principle of the law of na tions applies to such a case, that pure 2immcmt iMiraket. • BY GEO. SANDERSON.] Whole No. 1404. patriot ami eminent .jurist) .John Marshall, nas expressed it with great force anddear nesa. He says that “The jurisdiction of a'nation,-within dts own territory, is exclusive and.absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation riot imposed by itself. VAny restriction, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a di minution'of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that pow-, er which could impose such restriction.”— 7 Cranch, IX6.' And again: “Every nation has- exclusive jurisdiction over the waters adjacent to its shores, to the distance of a cannot shot, or marine league.” —1 Gallis, C. C. B. 62. According to the settled law of nations, if the Caroline had been a vesselof war, on the .high seaB,_bclonging to the insurgents, and alter an engagement with a British ves sel had been pursued within a marine league of the American shore, our national sover eignty, as a neutral power, would immedi ately have covered her, and a hostile gun coufd not have been fired against her with out affording us grounds fur just complaint. If, for example, the British and French na tions had been at open war, and a French yessel,inflying before British pursuit, should have been driven witlifn a marine league of the American coast, all further acts of hos tility towards her must have instantly ceas ed, or we, ns the neutral power, would have been wounded in the most sensitive point, namely, that of our sovereignty. I shall not' here argue to prove that in this case there has been a gross violation of dur national sovereignty, because on that point no gentleman, 1 am sure, does or can cn . ter tain a, d,oq b t,, ~Th at terms, through 6ur Minister abroad. The letter of Mf.- Stevenson on that occasion, docs hiim great hoiTOc, .indeed;.’ Repeated attempts were made to-induce the British Government-to answer this remonstrance, but all in vain. .It is true that it has been stated in the British House of Coirimons by one of the British ministers, that the Amer ican Government had finally given up! the question, and did. not intend to'insist upon an answer. The pretence for making this statement has most probably arisen from a custom too common among us of publishing diplomatic correspondence, whilstthe nego tiation to which it relates is still pending.— Mr. Stevenson, in his letter t 6 Mr. Forsyth of the 2d July, 1839, employs this language: “I regret to say that no answer has yet been given to my note iri the case of-the Ca roline. 1 have not deemed it.proper, under the circumstances, to press the subject with out further instructions from your Depart ment. If it is the wish of the Government that I should do so, I pray to be informed of it, and the .degree of urgency that I am to adopt.” To which Mr. Forsyth replies under date of September 11. 1839. ns follows: •‘With reference *o the closing paragraph of your communication to the Department, dated 2d of July Inst* it is proper to inform you-that.no instructions are at present re quired fur again bringing forward the ques tion of the.‘Caroline.’ / have had frequent conversations with Mr. Fox in regard to this subject, one of very recent date; and, from Us tone, the President expects the Bri tish Government will answer your applica tion in the case, without much further de lay•” The Senate will thus perceive that there is no foundation in this correspondence for the pretext that the American Government had abandoned the pursuit of this question, unless it may. be by garbling the note of Mr. Forsyth and suppressing the sentence which I have just read. _ Whether the administration of President Van Burcn pursued its remonstrance, with sufficient energy is not for me to - say, al though I believe they did, but that forms no part of the question now before the Senate. It seems that, from the conversation of Mr. Fox, Mr. Forsyth was induced to believe that a speedy answer would be given. On of November, 1840, this unfortun ate man, Alexander’McLeod, came volun tarily within the jurisdiction of the United States. J am inclined - to believe that the vain boasting of this man, as to his presence and participation in the attack on the Caro line, has occasioned all the difficulty which now exists. 1 rather”think he was not pre sent at the capture of that vessel, and the fact, if it had been wisely used, wobld have afforded the means of adjusting the difficul ty to the satisfaction of both parties. But he came upon the American soil, and, in the company of American citizens, openly boast ed that he had belonged to Drew’s capturing squadron. In consequence of these asser tions, he was arrested by the local authori ties, and indicted for murder. This state of things gave rise to a correspondence be tween Mr. Fox and Mr.Forsyth, from which I intend to. read a brief extract. The cor respondence resulted jn this; that Mr. For sythexpressed it as his opinion, and that of the President of the United States, that un der the law. of nations the avowal by the British Government of the capture of the Caroline, should such an avowal be made, would not free McLeod from prosecution in the criminal courts of the State, ofN. York. Its effect was merely cumulative. It did not take away the offence of McLeod, but added thereto, and made it ai national as well as an individual offence. The legal prosecution of McLeod, and the application to the British Government for satisfaction* were independent of each other, and might be separately and simultaneously pursued." But whether this were the true principle of national law or not; Mr. Forsyth very prop'- erly said that the question must bp decided by the judiciary of New York, and that. If the position of Mr. Fox were well founded, McLeod would have the full protection, of that doctrine before the' , court;: He could Carlisle, JP a. Tlmrsday dime 84, 1841. , plead that his net had been. recognized by. •the British Government, and if the,plea' were allowed ho would be set at liberty.— i That was the position .of the business at the : close of Mr: Van -Buren’s administration; and a happier, safer, and more secure posi tion of the question for American rights and even fop the honor of England, also, could not have been desired: When the trial came on, McLeod would have two grounds of defence: first, that he had not been pres ■ ent at the capture of the vessel; ‘ and, next, that this capture had been recognized by the British Government as' a public act done under its authority. If, ,ih this state of things, there had been a little prudent de lay, the question would probably soon have settled itself to the satisfaction of both par ties. But inquiries had been addressed, in Parliament, to the British ministers on this subject, and a high excitement had been produced throughout the British nation.— This can alway&iie done in that country on every’’controversy, with America, because our side of the question never appears in their public journals. I have been for years in tlie habit of reading some of the English journals, atid, so far as I have observed, our side of the question, cvbn in relation to the north-east boundary, had never to this day been presented to the British' public. No Englishman can obtain from "any of these journals which I have seen, any distinct idea whatever ns to the ground insisted upon by us in that controversy.' An excitement had been raised on the McLeod question, and- loud- defiances had been uttered on the floor of the House of -Commons. Threats had been made, in case the American Government should dare- to retain McLeod in. custody. An attempt •.•nnuau'iAirW-itWsticcWs.nibir IWA'tifencaii'' fleet fu the Mediterranean,-or at least a por tion of it, has actually returned home, while all oiir vessels-in that sea-had passed the straits and gone into the Atlantic. Some people here even, other than the ladies, be caine afraid, that the British fleets would be upon our coast and lay our cities mashes. A marvellous panic prevailed for a time a mong.those who had weak nerves, and then, to crown all, came the letter of Mr. Fox to Mr. AiVebster. -The British'nation has, I freely admit, much to recommend it,but we all knout that their diplomatic poliey, un like that Of other European nations, has been . of a character bold, arrogant, and overbear ing. John Bull has ever preferred to 'ac complish'-that-by main* force which Other nations would have attempted by diploma cy. ' I come now to the letter of Mr. Fox, and such a letter! This leltcr'is the more imposing from the fact that it was not Mr. - Fox’s own composition, but is an official 1 communication from the British Govern- I ment. This fact appeals from its first sen,- | tcncc, which is as follows: “The undersigned, her Britanic Majesty|s ! Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni potentiary, is instructed by his Government , to make the following official communica < lion to the Government of the U. States,” If is then-an official communication from the British Government themselves. _ It is not my desire on this occasion to excite ei ther here or elsewhere any feelings which should riot be excited. I merely state facts. To what is this letter an answer? If to any thing, it is to the letter of Mr. Forsyth ad dressed to Mr.. Fox. tin the 26th December, 1840. I will not trouble the Senate to read that paper, they may find it in documenl.3s, page 4. And what is the character of the letter of Mr. Fox? : It commences with a peremptory and conclusive settlement of the whole matter so far as the British Govern ment is concerned. It is’not sufficient for that Government to say that they take the responsibility of the act of McLeod upon themselves, but they even justify in the strongest terms the capture of the Caroline itself.* Yet here is Mr'. Webster,' on the 24(h of April, arguing a question which the British ministry had settled six weeks be fore. They do not say surrender McLeod and the question of the Caroline shall be left opeii. That would not be according to the mariner of John Bull when he puts him self fairly in motion. He docs not stop to argue, but at once cuts the knot without the trouble of giving any reason. Mr. Steven son had remonstrated in the most urgent manner, and had submitted to the British Government at London a mass of testimony, but no notice whatever was taken of his communication, and no reason , given for their determination. Mr. Fox, or rather that Government, in half a-sentence settles the question. ; . *' “The transaction in question, (says the letter,) may have been, as her Majesty’s Government are of opinion that it was, a justifiable employment of force for the pur-, pose of defending the .British territory,” 4'C. Our remonstrance, when this haughty re ply was written, had been.pending for three years. .. Mr. Forsyth, in his lettcrof 261 h Decem ber, 1840, had argumentatively stated the whole case; setting forth .that the avowal of McLeod’s act,‘should it be assumed by the British Government, so far from doing away with our ground of complaint, went only to increase it. It was cumulative, not excul patory. Whilst if would not relieve Mc- Leod from personal responsibility, it would seriously implicate The British Government in his guilt. And how is that argument an swered?.ln this haughty imperious sen tence: . - ‘’HerMajesty’s,Government cannot be lieve that the Government of the*United States can really intend to "set an example so fraught with evil to the community of na tions, and the direct ,tendency of which must be to bring into the practice of modern war atrocities which civilization and Chris tianity have long since banished.” „ Here is no argument attempted, no au thority cited, but a simple declaration put forth in the strongest terms as to the "atro- "OUR COUNTRY —RIGHT OR WRONG.” . < •city’-’-of-lhe-principld for-which-the Amcri- i can Government had been seriously conten-, ding. But (ho crowning point of this in-i suiting letter is yet to come; and 1 under- 1 take to say that'it contains a direct threat from (he British Government; 1 am not extensively acquainted.with the language of diplomacy, biil I certainly have not scen.a ny thing like this threat in any official com munication between civilized and friendly nations for the last, fifty years. I hope 1 maybe mistaken in my view of the language, .but hero it is: " "But bo that ns It may, her Majesty’s Government formally demand, upon the grounds already stated, the immediate re lease of Mr. McLeod;’ and her Majesty’s Government entreat the President of the United States to take into his most deliber ate consideration the serious nature of the consequences, which must ensue from a re jection of this demand .” What consequences? What consequen- ces? After the denunciations ..\vc have heard in the British Parliament, and all that occurred in the course of -the previous cor respondence, could any thing have been in tended but “the serious nature of the conse quences which must ensue” from war with England? And here let me put a case. I am so unfortunate as to have a difference with a friend of mine. 1 will suppose it to be my friend from South Carolina, [Mr. Preston.] I know if you please, even that lam In the wrung. My friend comes to me, and demands an explanation, adding, at the same time, these-wordsulf you do not grant the reparation demanded, I entreat you to consider the serious consequences which must ensue from your refusal. Certain I am, there is not.a single member of this Sen ate,; J^imigh.t.sayimot^nn;-ibteUjstent-!iaiian:Tn istS&tian'^iJage'al'':d 'hitfria^e',' wtilclt' rri nsf Ee -withdrawn or explained before any repara tion could be made. It was.the jnfipment after ! read this sentence that I determined to bring the subjc.ot before the Senate. A thought then ‘struck me wliiclTperhaps' I should do better now to repress; .but it was this. I imagined 1 saw that man Mr.. Jefferson truly denominated the&Bpßbinan. as President, sitting in his apiupnent and reading this tetter for the first timW When he came to'this sentence, what would be his feelings? What indignant emotions would it arouse in his breast? Of him;it may be justly said } - "A kind, true heart; a spirit high, That could not fear, and would not bow, Is writtett in Ids man); eye, - And on his manly brow.” Would he not have resolved never to make any explanation under such a threat?— Would lie nut have required it to be with drawn or explained before any answEr what ever to Sir. Fux’s demand? In this possibly he might have gone too far. Our Secretary, however, has passed over this threat without adverting to it in any manner whatever. And tiow we come to the case immediate- ly before the Senate. Although I think the Secretary of State decidedly wrong in his view of the law of nations, that to me is comparatively a very small matter. 1 have not, in this thing, any personal or private feeling to gratify. Towards the Secretary of State 1 cherish no unkindly feelings, aqd I sincerely hope that he may discharge the du ties ofhis high and responsible station in such a manner as to redound more and more to his own honor. What I complain of is this omission, and an omission, 1 consider, of great consenucnce. He has not, in his re ply, noticed that threat at all, although it was conveyed in such terras as would nave entirely justified him in saying “the Ameri can Government has no answer to give until this language' has been explained.” Be should at least have said, “this is a menace, such as it is nut usual in the diplomatic cor respondence between civilized and indepen dent nations, and I shall be glad if you will explain or reconsider the language employ ed.” For myself, said Mr. B. I have no desire for war with Englarid; so far am 1 from desiring it, that I would consent to sacrifice, all but our honor in order'to avoid it. Butl think Mr. Webster to blame in not noticing language which. I consider as containing a very, distinct. and intelligible threat. But. let that pass. Even if the Secretary were right in the view he'takes of the law of nations, still I think that common prudence would have dictated to him not to express his opinion so strongly. It was then a judicial question pending, and eventually to be decided, by the highest court in the State of New York; a tribunal, which, on all hands, and by Mr. Webster himself, is admitted to be eminent ly entitled to confidence. -Suppose it should happen (as it will happen, if my humble judgment of the law should prove correct) that the Supreme Court of the State of New York and the Secretary of State of the U. States should differ in. opinion as to the le gal question. Suppose an appeal should then be taken (if such an appeal may be taken), to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it should there be decided, as I feel . great confidence .that it should be, a gainst the opinion of the Secretary of State, what would beihexondition-ofi-this Govern ment? The judicial authority will be on one side of the question, and the Executive Govern ment on-the other.’- Whilst . the Judiciary decide that McLeod is responsible in the criminal courts of New York, the Secretary decides that he is not. ' By prejudging this pending judicial question, the Secretary haS p.laced himself in an awkward dilemma, siiould.JheiSupreine Court qf'New York der (ermine that the recognition arid justification by the British Government of the capture of the Caroline does not release McLeod from personal responsibility. In common pru dence, , therefore,< Mr. Webster ought to have expressed no decided opinion on _ this delicate question, but left it tothe Judiciary, as Mr. Van Bureii’a administration had done. But the Secretary of State thought other- [AT TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM. Row Series—Vol. 6, No. a. wise; —The imperious tdhe-of Mr. Fox’s tel ler docs not Seem to have produced any cfleet on Ids mind. Three short days after iU date, on the 15th March, 1841, he issues his instructions to the Attorney General.— These instructions are'the real, substantial answer to Mr, Fox’s letter, and have proved entirely satisfactory to the British Govern ment, as they could nut have failed to do.— Thei'letter written by Mr. Webster, on the !24th of the succeeding April, will never disturb that Government. Long before it was written, the Secretary had granted them every thing which they could have desired. He at once, by these instructions, aban doned the position so ably maintained by Mr. Van Buren’s administration, that Mc- would still be responsible,individually, notwithstanding the British Government might recognize the destruction of the Caro .line. In condemning this position, he uses terms almost as strong as Mr. Fox had done in denouncing it. He say's “that an indi vidual forming part ol a public force, and acting under the, authority of his Govern ment, is,not to be held answerable as a pri vate trespasser or nialefactorvisa principle of public law sanctioned by the usages of all civilized nations, and which the Govern ment of the United States has no inclination to dispute.” ' As actions speak louder than words, what did Mr, Webster do with this threatening letter staring him in the facet With fiery expedition he has his Attorney. General on the way to Lockpoit; and I cannot but think,, from niy personal knowledge of that officer, that the mission on which he was employed could not have been very agreeable to him. He informs the British Government at once, for we ought nevcr*"to forget that the. letter’ to'Mr^'dtittendenisin^sup3tMce'tßii®£cre-. the President’s power to enter a nolle pro-] aequi against McLeod, it should be done without a moment’s delay. -“If this indict-' nient,” says he, "were pending In one of the, Courtsi of the United States,;JLamJlirectqdJ to say that the President, 'upon the receipt! of Mr. Fox’s last communication, would hare { . immediately directed a nolle prosequi to be entered.?’ But as this-was notin.Mr. Web ster’s. poWer, the Governor of New York was in the next place'to Its. .assailed, in .or der to accomplish the same purpose. Mr. Crittenden was informed that h« would “be furnished with a copy of this instruction, for (he use-of the Executive of New York and the Attorney General of that State.”---" "Whether,” says (he Secretary, in this case, “the Governor of New York have that pow er, or, if he have, whether be would feel it his duty to exercise it, are points upon which we are not informed.” But the Governor of New,York proved to be a very restive subject. He felt no incli nation whatever to enter a nolle prosequi a gainst McLeod. I have seen, somewhere, a correspondence between that officer and the President, but I cannot now find it.—. The tone of this correspondence on the part of the Governor evinced a spirit of determi ned resistance to the suggestion of the Sec retary. The Governor complained that the, District Attorney of the United States was acting as the counsel of McLeod. This, however, according to the explanation of the President, happened by mere accident; the Attorney having been, retained as counsel some time before.bis appointment.' The correspondence, at all events, is sufficient to show that Governor Seward did not partici pate iii the views andfeellngs of the Secre tary of the State towards McLeod, and we know that he did not approve of entering a nolle prosequi in his case. But the Attorney General of'the United States was armed with his instructions from: the Secretary of, State, to meet every con- ( lingency. If McLeod could hot be dis charged by a nolle prosequi ; if he must bo tried, then Mr. Crittenden was to consult with McLeod’s counsel, and furnish them the evidence material to his defence, and he was even 4 'to see that he have skilful and eminent counsel, if such be not already re tained.” It is no wonder that it appeared very strange to,Governor Seward to find the authorities of the United States thus active ly" andiirdently engaged in defending" Mc- Leod, whilst the authorities of New York were enlisted with equal vigor in his prose cution. . . _ r -. The.defence of this man, whohad no claim to peculiar favor,’except what arose from an earnest desire to please and satisfy the Brit ish Government, became the object of the Secretary’s peculiar.solicitude, and this, too, in the face of a plain, palpable menace from that Government. The next thing wq might hear would be a bill of-cost and- counsel fees against this Government for the defence of McLeod; it having been imposed ns a duty on our At torney-General to see that "lie had skilful atid eminent counsel.” «• Now these are features in this transaction any thing but creditable to- our., national character. I think that sufficient decision and firmness have not been displayed, by the American Secretary of State. It'ivyill ever prove a miserable policy to' attempt to con ciliate the British Government by concession.. It was the maxim of General Jackson that, in ogr foreign relations, we should ask only' what was right, and submit to nothing that was wrong; and; in my, judgment, the obser vance of.jthat maiim is the, very best mode of preserving peace. When a nation sub mits to one aggression, another will soon follow. It is .Wth nations as it is with indi viduals. ' Madrf and prompt resistance will secure you from a'repetition'of insult. If you yield once, you will be expected to yield again, till atdcngth „th?re is no.eht| to submission. I do not pretend that- Mr. Webster has done wrong intentionally; ail 1 mean to _ say is, that, in my he lias not, in this instance, displayed a proper and. becoming American spirit., If be had, waited a little longer before hp prepared his insttactions to the Attorney GeaernU if he had taken-tipiefor reflection before he des- AGENTS, John Moore, Esq. Newvill . / Joseph M. Means, Esq. Honcwelltownship. John Wunderlich, Esq. Sliipperisburg. William M, Mother, Esq* Lee’s X Uoads. John Mehafey, Dickinson township. John Clkndknin, Jr. Esq., Hogestown. George F. Cain, Esq. Mechanicsburg Frederick WoNDEßncir, do. Joint Stougii, Esq, Stougbstown. Daniel Krvsuer, Esq.Clmrclitowri. Jacob Longneckkr, Esq. Wormreysbtng, J. B. Drawdaugh, Cedar Spring, Alien tp. Martin G, Kurpy Esq. Shiremunstown, patched that officer crusading to New York, his conduct would probably have been dillei - emit; According; to tbe practice of diplo macy,, a ,copy of these instructions was doubtless at once sent to Mr. Fox. It is certain that they were known to the British Government before Ihe.Clh of May, because on that day they were referred to by Lord John Russell on the floor, of the House of Commons as a documcnt-in possession of the British Cabinet. I shall now offer a few remarks on the question of public law involved in this case, and then close what I have to say. 1 sin cerely believe the Administration of Mr. Van Burcn was perfectly correct on this doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Forsyth. ' If I had found any. authority -to induceTnc to” entertain a doubt on that point, I would refer to it most freely. I now undertake to say that the only circumstance which has produced confusion and doubt in the minds of well-informed men on this subject is, that they do not make the proper distinction be tween a state of national war and national peace. If a nation be at war, the command of the sovereign power to invade’the terri tory of its’enemy, and do battle there against any hostile force, always justifies the troops thus engaged. When any of .the invaders are seized, they are considered ns ‘prisoners of war, and as having done nothing but what the. laws of war justified them in doing. In such a case they can never be held to answer, criminally, in the courts of-thc invaded country.. That, is clear, The invasion of ap enemy’s terri tory is one of the rights of war, and, in all its necessary consequences,' is justified by the laws of war. But there are offences,-' committed .even in opcit>v.W« ! . whichjjthe.oxj; I will give gentlemen an example., A spy will be bung if caught,-even though hexacted under the .express.command.of .his sovereign. We might qite the case of the unfortunate Major-Andre. He. was arrested on -his tct turn from an interview with Arnold, and, his life being 'in danger, the. British com mander (Sir Henry Clinton, I Relieve) made ad effort'to save him, by- taking upon him self the responsibility of the act. But al though .he-had .crossed our lines-whilst' the two nations were in a state of open and flu-, grant war, in -obedience to instructions from nis commander-in-chief, yet Washington; notwithstanding, rightfully hung liifn ds a spy . ■ - Now, let me tell whoever shall answer me, (if, indeed any gentleman will conde scend to notice' what I have said—for it seems, we on this side of the Houses are to do all the speaking, and they all the voting,) that whilst all the modern authoriticscon cur in declaring that the law of nations pro tects individuals when obeying (be orders of-their sovereign, during a state of open and flagrant war, whether it has been solemnly declared or nut. and whether it be general or partial, yet these authorities proceed no further. But, to decide correctly, on the ap plication of this principle in the case before us, we must recollect that the two belliger ents here were England on the one’ hand and her insurgent subjects on the other, and that'the United States were a neutral power, in perfect peace with. England. But what is the rule in regard to nations at peace with each other? . This.ls the question. As be tween such nations docs the command of an Inferior officer of the one, to individuals, to violate the sovereignty of the other,' and commit murder and arson, if afterward rec ognised by the supreme authority, prevent the nation whose laws have been outraged from-punishing the’offenders. Under such circumstances. What is the law'of ,nations? The doctrine is laid down in Vattol, an author .admitted to be of the highest authority on ques tions of international law; and the very question lolidcm verbis, which arises in this case, is in his book stated .and decided. He admits that the lawful commands of a legitimate Government, whether to its troops or other citizens, protects .them from individual responsibility for hostile acts done in obedience to such commands, whilst in a state of open war. In such a case, a prisoner of wards never to he subjected to tiro criminal juris diction of the country within which he has been arrested.' But'what is the law of nations in regard ■ to criminal offences committed by the citizens or subjects of one power, within tho sovereignty and jurisdiction of another, they being at peace with each other, even if these criminal acts should bo recognised and justified by the, offender’s sover eign? This Is tho case of tho capture and destruc tion of the Caroline. The subject is treated of by Vattsl, under tho head “of the concern, a nation, may have in the actions of'her citizens,’’ book ii, chap,.6, page 161. I shall read sections 73,74, and 75; ■ “However, as it is impossible,” says tho author, “for the best regulated Stale, or for the niost vigi lant and absolute sovereign to model at bis pleas ure all the actions of bis subjects, and to confine them on ovary occasion to the most exact obedi ence, it would.be tinjusi-lo impute to the nation or the sovereign every-fault-committed by the citi zens. We ought not, then, to say, in general, , that we have received an injury from a nation, be cause wo have received it ftom one of Its members, "But if a nation or its chief approves and ratifies the act of the individual, it then Wcomes a pnblio concern, and the injured party is then to consider tho potion as the real author of the injury, of which tho citizen was perhaps only, the ihstmmcnt? ’ kK Jf the offended, Slatt has inker power the indi vidual who has done the injury,:shemoy without scruple, bring him to Justice, and punish him. If he has escaped, and returned to his own country, shq ought to apply to his sovereign id have justice done in the case.” Can any thing in the world be clearer? The • author puts tho case distinctly. The nation in- . jured ought not to impute to the sovereign of it - friendly nation tho acts of its individual citizens; but if such ijriepdly';BoTereign shall recognise the actsas his- own, it then becomes a national con-' cent. Butdoeesuch n recognition wash away tho guilt of the offender, dnd release him from tho , punishment due to his offence under the Jutisdic- ' tion of the country whose laws-he has, violated?: Let Vattel answer this question. He says: Jf Me/. ffindedStdte.hA Jn her .power tie individual who , has done the injury, the may, without temple, hiring pint ip justice and punish him.'' There )S the di rpot plan, and palpable authority. And liproper. . htit trie to add that ! tliihk I can' ptovo that, nc- " [Concluded on id Page.) •
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers