Phillippe. The truth is, the king himself, in consequence of his previous action, was anxious for the ratification of the treaty. General Cass had penetrated the diplomacy of the British government, and had several private interviews with the king and M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Before the publication of his pamphlet, he called upon M. Guizot, and expressed a wish, as the subject was important to his country, and not well understood, to prepare his views of it, and to spread them before the French public. M. Guizot said that he saw no objection to this course, and therefore General Cass can not be accused of taking an improper or an undiplomatic course. Indeed, he exerted himself to the utmost to break up the unholy alliance, and to his own great gratification personally, and to the honor of his country, and the uninterrupted prosperity of his fellow-citizens at home, he was signally triumphant.

Believing that this important labor constitutes one of the great epochs of his life, we transcribe the appeal to the French people entire in the succeeding chapter.

CAFORS

CHAPTER XXVI.

The Appeal of General Cass to the People of France.

PART I.—THE QUESTION STATED THE MOTIVES OF THE BRITISH GovERNMENT THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The right of maritime search, now in discussion between the British and American governments, is a grave question, practically interesting to all nations to whom the freedom of the seas is dear, if not in its application to the subject which has been the cause or the pretext of its assertion, at any rate, from the consequences to which its use or abuse may lead. Its connection with the African slave trade is but incidental, and the nature of this traffic, which nowhere finds advocates, can not affect the nature of the question, nor the right of a state, nor of a combination of states, to make an interpolation into the law of nations, which shall become a part of that great public code. Great Britain professes to push this point, in order to destroy the yet existing relics of that trade. We do not question her motives— that is no part of our purpose. But, in all general discussions, we must take human nature as it is, with the good and the bad blended together; and we may, without offense, fairly follow out the application of a principle, and seek its consequences to the parties. And we are at liberty, without violating any of the courtesies of a liberal controversy, to assume that neither can be indifferent to its bearing upon their interest, whatever motive of general benevolence may have led to the differGreat Britain is eminently a maritime and commercial nation, and the history of her naval progress, during the last century and a half, is pregnant with lessons for all people interested in the freedom of the seas. She has marched steadily on to her object. Naval superiority she has acquired, and naval supremacy she seeks. We say this in a spirit of truth, not of offense. Human ambition is everywhere, in some form or other, in ceaseless action; and, upon sea and land, the history of the past is but the warning of the future, and nations will strive, as they have striven, for power. It is impossible that the intelligent government and people of Great Britain should shut their eyes to the effect of this claim of a right of search upon their interests, whatever motives of philanthropy may have led to its first suggestion. To their flag it will give the virtual supremacy of the seas. We say virtual supremacy, because it would be found, in practice, that, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it would be her cruisers which would search the vessels of other nations.

ence.

During twenty-five years, the British government has urged the government of the United States to consent to this measure. The application has been steadily repelled and pertinaciously repeated. In the meantime, treaties have been formed, at various intervals, between Great Britain and some other nations, establishing a mutual right of search, and regulating the principles upon which it shall be exercised. Within a short time, five of the European powers, two of which have few

vessels upon the ocean, and, probably, not one on the coast of Africa, had reciprocally made themselves parties to a similar convention. "Great Britain," says the London journal, the Times, "has managed, by great exertion, to accomplish this object." We do not judge, if the expression is rightly chosen. It is certainly very significant. And now this principle of the right of search, in a time of profound peace, heretofore never claimed as a question of right, and so solemnly decided by the English Admiralty Judge, Lord Stowell, but sought, as a conventional arrangement, for the first time since the last general war in Europe, and established by treaties with several powers, as a matter to be regulated by themselves, is claimed by Great Britain to be a part of the law of nations, which she has both the right and the will to carry into effect, as a sort of custos morum for all the maritime powers of the world. "All our government contends for," says the Times, "is the mere right to act as constables in boarding suspicious ships, bearing the American flag." And who made England the great prefect of police of the ocean, searching and seizing at pleasure? And the United States, who have so long been asked to yield this point by convention, are now told that it is established without them and in spite of them; and the great ministerial English journal, the Times, in a leading article of its number of January 5th, 1842, after defending this interpolation into the law of nations, says that the European powers, parties to the last treaty, will not brook to be thwarted by any ordinary restiveness. It thus significantly concludes: "A single war with Great Britain she (the United States) has already tried; a war, on her part, with all Europe, will be a novelty."

There is certainly no want of frankness here. While the special Ambassador, Lord Ashburton, goes out with the professed objects of peace and conciliation, we are told in effect by this leading journal, that the United States have but one course to adopt, in order to avoid a war with the European world; and that is, submission to the demand of England. There are powers, parties to the late treaty upon this subject, which we shall not believe will make themselves parties to a war with the United States, until we actually hear the sound of their guns. Does the Times speak by permission, or by command, or by neither? Is this declaration a prophecy, as well as threat?

As to the suppression of the slave trade, it is a question which meets no opposition in the United States. The American government, if not the first, was among the first to give the example to the world of a legal prohibition of this traffic. As early as March 22d, 1794, they commenced their legislative measures for its repres sion, and in subsequent laws, passed 10th May, 1800, 28th February, 1803, 2d March, 1807, 20th April, 1818, and 3d March, 1819, they extended and enforced the provisions and penalties upon this subject, and rendered liable to heavy fines, and among other punishments, to an imprisonment of seven years, those who should be engaged in this nefarious pursuit. Their armed crusiers have permanent instructions to examine all the American merchant vessels they meet, and which they have reason to suspect; and their tribunals enforce these repressive laws with as much promptitude and impartiality as those of France or England enforce similar laws. That violations may occasionally occur, and that the American flag may be sometimes abused, we feel no disposition to deny,-not by the introduction of slaves into the United States, for that traffic is unknown, and would be impossible. We may venture to assert, that not a slave has been imported into the United States for thirty years. We would not be guilty of deception upon this subject, and if there is a single exception to this statement, we have never learned it. If American

interests are connected with this traffic, it is in the transportation of slaves to Brazil or the Spanish colonies. But even this is much rarer than is supposed; and what has given occasion to the imputation of its frequent occurrence, is the fact, that the sharp Baltimore schooners, well known for their speed, are often sold to the Spanish and Portuguese merchants, and are then fitted out for the slave trade. Every practical sailor knows them at once; and as they are American built, they are supposed to be American property, when in truth their national character is changed. But any candid, intelligent man will at once see and acknowledge, that in the scandalous traffic like this of human beings, condemned by the public opinion and by the laws of the United States, and watched perpetually by one of their squadrons upon the coast of Africa, revolting to humanity, afflicting to all Christians, and reprobated by the civilized world, the pecuniary interests of a few degraded men, who covertly pursue it, by associating their capital with the regular slave dealers of other nations, would not weigh as the small dust of the balance with the American government in any consideration connected with this matter. This miserable motive has been hinted at, rather than distinctly charged, by some of the English journals. We shall not descend to refute the charge. No administration in the United States, giving the least just ground for such an imputation, could resist the public indignation. No: it is not African slavery the United States wish to encourage; it is, as we shall see by and by, American slavery, the slavery of American sailors, they seek to prevent.

But after all, a crusade of benevolence can not be carried on against any nation, because its laws are sometimes violated, and its flag abused. If its government connives at such measures, then, indeed, it is justly liable to the reproach of Christendom. But against the United States, there is no pretense for such an imputation; and the question, now under discussion, must be judged, independently of these accidental evasions, which are common to all nations and to all codes.

PART II. THE QUESTION MET-ENGLISH AND AMERICAN PERTINACITY THE REASONS WHY THE FORMER IS WRONG AND THE LATTER RIGHT THE GREATEST OBJECTION OF ALL-THE RIGHT OF SEARCH DISCUSSED AND REFUTED-THE KEY TO AMERICAN RELUCTANCE AND BRITISH PERTINACITY-THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RIGHT TO VISIT, OR SEARCH, OR BOTH.

As to a right of search in time of peace, no one pretends it has heretofore existed. The well known English Admiralty Judge, Sir William Scott, afterwards Lord Stowell, whose disposition to enlarge, rather than to restrain, the maritime pretensions of England, no one, who knows the course of his decisions, during the last general war, will doubt, expressly decided, that such a right was unknown to the law of nations. This decision, in the case of a French vessel seized upon the coast of Africa, absolutely puts down all this pretension in the most authoritative manner. "No nation can exercise a right of visitation and search, upon the common and unappropriated parts of the ocean, except upon the belligerent claim. No nation has the right to force their way, for the liberation of Africa, by trampling upon the

independence of other States, on the pretense of an eminent good, by means that are unlawful, or to press forward to a great principle, by breaking through other great principles which stand in their way."

But it may be asked, as the object for which this measure is now demanded is just, why does not the American government assent to the propositions which have been made? Is the reciprocal power more injurious or less honorable to the United States than to other nations, who have admitted its obligation? The question is a fair one, and ought to be fairly met. If this can not be done, we shall not deny that the motives of the United States may be fairly suspected, and their conduct arraigned at the bar of Christendom.

In the first place, we would remark, that there is a natural indisposition in the human mind to yield to applications which are accompanied with threats of the consequences. This sentiment is common to nations as well as it is to individuals, and, in fact, forms part of the dignity of human nature. English pertinacity in demanding, has been met by American pertinacity in resisting; and now, when the United States are summoned to give their adhesion to a new principle of public law, against which they have uniformly protested since its first promulgation, and are told by Lord Aberdeen, that the course of the English government is taken, and that the claim will be enforced, with the taunt that "it is for the American government to determine what may be due to a just regard for their national dignity and national honor," no generous people can fail to find in their present position that just resistance to dictation, without which there can neither be self respect at home nor honorable estimation abroad.

But besides, where would end this doctrine of interpolation? Who can tell the extent to which it may be pushed, or the purposes to which it may be applied? It is by progressive steps, that many a pretension, hostile to the best dictates of reason and humanity, has urged its way to recognition, and taken its place in the code of maritime law. Belligerent powers are always ready to break down the feeble barriers with which public opinion has endeavored to protect the rights of peaceful traffic; and in the Times of the eighth instant, this process is described and defended with equal frankness and coolness. The lessons of the past are lost upon him, who does not read in this avowal, the contemplated transformations which the great maritime code is destined to undergo. An act of violence of yesterday, so pronounced by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Stowell, becomes the doctrine of to-day, and to-morrow finds itself firmly established, to be defended by jurists, enforced by cannon, and applied by Courts of Admiralty.

"And the same kind of general proscription, since attempted by Napoleon against ourselves, has equally failed to gain admittance into the international code. In all this, history, justice and expediency have alternately triumphed, but each step has been the result of a struggle (the italics here and elsewhere are our own) such as is now pending between ourselves and the United States. Law has had to work its own way." Significant words these, and as true as they are significant. When force more and more usurps the place of justice, law works its own way, and it goes on bearing down before it the doctrine of jurists, the decision of judges, and the rights of the world.

But apart from these general considerations, applicable to all changes in the maritime code of nations, there are cogent reasons why the United States should refuse their assent to this measure, some of which are common to them and to all other states which do not seek to exercise the police of the seas, or, as the Times