ment, at Fort Amherstburgh. His discourse to the Canadians, under an imaginary impression of its being confidential, was not a little surprising, considered merely as the emanation of a savage mind; and though the facts he alluded to, with respect to the state of European affairs, were by no means correct, they still tend to shew that some extraordinary and unusual impressions have been attempted on the Indian mind, from a civilized quarter. I can only account for his remarks by supposing them to have their true origin to the southward, among the Spaniards.

The third circumstance relates to a second projected visit of some of the Indian Chiefs of this quarter, with some of the French gentlemen of this Territory, to the court of Bonaparte. Although pecuniary motives would seem to have originated it, I have very little doubt that, if it should take place, it will be converted to some political purpose; which if not injurious to the United States, it will be at least useful to the government to have information of. As it is proposed to pass through the United States, I will give an early intimation of it, if it should be about to take place while I am here; and, if my situation should be any way changed, I will take care to designate to the government a channel, through which sincere and seasonable information will be supplied.

I deem it the more a duty to be the means of communicating this information to the Executive, as it is entirely unknown to any other of the officers of government here. The population of this Territory, with the exception of the town and the garrisons, being almost exclusively French, and the intercourse of the heart seldom passing through the medium of interpreters, the governor of the Territory, as well as the secretary, are sometimes cut off from information which might be interesting; as the governor has experienced, much to his cost, in his various transactions with the Canadians. Those two gentlemen excepted no other civil officer of responsibility is at present in the Territory but myself; and though my station is not such as to authorize a direct correspondence with the executive on political affairs, I have always conceived it allowable, in the character of a private citizen, to be the channel of conveying any facts, or even sentiments, which might appear worthy of a temporary attention; at no time relaxing in an unqualified support of the measures directed by competent authority, either at the seat of the general government, or here, whether they might correspond with my individual opinion, or not.

The high and serious dissensions, also, which subsist between the two first officers of our government, and which I have no doubt will at first appear very perplexing to the mind of the general executive, seem to present almost insuperable barriers to society and confidence. I have found it an embar

rassing and almost impossible task, to avoid the enmity of their respective adherents; according as I happen to be successively suspected of favoring the one or the other.

The only mode I could adopt was to avoid, as far as practicable, particular intercourse with both. For sixteen months past I have had no intercourse whatever with the secretary, and for about eight months none with the governor. While I condemn, in the most unequivocal manner, the malice which the secretary bears towards the governor, and the low intrigues to which he has resorted to injure him, and collaterally all who have entertained the least friendship for him, I am at the same time very sensible of a number of important indiscretions in the governor's conduct. I say indiscretions; because if I thought there was more than indiscretions, I would not hesitate to say so, either to the general executive, or to the public. I presume however, that as far as the general executive deems it important to have minute information as to facts, they are already supplied, in a more correct and impartial shape than it would be in my power to place them. The French inhabitants, who, though they may be sometimes uninformed, are not generally ill-disposed, relish but little either of the disputants. In a Catholic country, where there is not one protestant minister, or one protestant religious society, of any denomination, a protestant minister, particularly of the eastern manners, even though his character were adorned with all the virtues appropriate to his profession, is not naturally the most acceptable. Indeed to the people of this country, as well others as the French, the eastern habits are the least, respected. The British gentlemen have always indulged a sort of contemptuous and unjustifiable hatred of them; and, when displeased, the term "Yankee" is one of the most virulent epithets which they conceive they can apply. The French do not use this term, though they entertain the same idea, and perhaps with still greater force. They have another term, which answers then the same purpose. It is the term "Bostonnois," which they pronounce "Bastonnois," "Sacré Bastonnois," or "Sacré cochon de Bastonnois," is their most virulent term of abuse, when they are displeased with an American, or, with a person from the Eastern States particularly. It is, however, unfortunately true that, among the French inhabitants, the secretary is much better esteemed that the governor.

As I presume the government are at this time entirely occupied with the British negotiation, and other matters of pecuniary consequence; and the matters to which I have alluded are not such as would produce the least change in any part of its immediate conduct; and some of those details, which can alone enable a just estimate of either the credibility or value of what is stated, I have yet to collect; I shall defer for some time, a second communication

on the subject. In order, in some measure, to prevent it from transpiring at a more early period than the government might desire, I shall probably either transmit it in French, trusting that a few errors in the use of a foreign language will be overlooked, or in a cypher, or by some conveyance more special than usual. My reason for giving notice of it, in a preliminary letter is, that I shall be obliged to show my second communication to some persons, in order to be ascertained that the information is correct on the two first points; and to those persons it ought not to be known that I have said anything to the government on the subject of the third.

In the matter of Elizabeth Dennison, James Dennison, Scipio Dennison, and Peter Dennison, junior, detained by Catherine Tucker.

Ordonnance de Mr. Raudot Intendant du 15 avril 1709, regétre No. 3, folio 32, Vo.

Qui, sous le bon plaisir de sa mageste, ordonne que tous les Panis et negres qui ont ete achetes, ou que le seront par la suite, appartiend sont en plein proprieté a ceux qui en ont faits ou feront l'acquisitions en qualite d' esclaves.*

The return to the writ of habeas corpus applied for and granted in this case brings out the question of slavery in general as it applies to the Territory of Michigan.

Slavery is not at this day permitted in England. Perhaps it is not permitted in any part of Europe. At any rate that absolute and unqualified state of slavery which is at present permitted in the United States of America, in relation to the people of Africa, does not exist in Europe, and probably has never existed there. In England, therefore, the attempt to

*For translation see appendix

exercise a dominion over a man as an absolute and unqualified slave would be by their celebrated writ of habeas corpus, a writ the celebrity of which is very much enhanced by the bright contrast which it presents to the practices of other governments in which human liberty is less regarded. The remarkable and important case decided by Lord Mansfield, that of James Somerset, reported in the State trials and by Loft is a recent instance of the application of the writ of habeas corpus to the question of slavery as it relates to Africans when in England.

In those of the American States in which the absolute and unqualified slavery of Africans is permitted, a mode is generally provided by statute in which to try the question of slave or no slave, or in other words the right of freedom. Sometimes it is in a mode deviating from the general course of law by which the trial of other questions is regulated. In other instances the usual methods of law have been used, and the writ de pomine replegiando, the action of assault and battery, and the action of assumpsit on a quantum meruit for services, have been successively approved. In short any action in which the supposed master is plaintiff and the supposed slave defendant, or wherein the supposed slave is a plaintiff and the master a defendant, whatever the judgment in the former case, and if the judgment be in favor of the slave in the latter, may be conceived to establish his right of freedom by a judicial decision and by matter of record, for an action against him by the master is conceived at once to confer freedom, and in the character of a freeman alone could he maintain any action of any description against the supposed master.

In this Territory slavery is absolutely and peremptorily forbidden. Nothing can reflect higher honor on the American government than this interdiction. The slave trade is unquestionably the greatest of the enormities which have been perpetrated by the human race. The existence at this day of an absolute and unqualified slavery of the human species in the United States of America, is universally and justly considered their greatest and deepest reproach. The statesmen, their agitators, the whole body of their people are advancing gradually towards its total extirpation. In the meantime, the interdiction of it in this Territory ought to be considered as imposing a most serious and sacred duty. Calculating on its absolute non existence the laws have provided no special course of proceeding by which the question of freedom is to be investigated. The inhabitants, for no less general is the term which has been used, have secured to them the benefits and privileges of the common law; and hence the present writ, as one of the most precious of those privileges, has been awarded. The question necessary to be decided is the sufficiency of the return. It reposes the right to hold the applicants in a

*Terminated.-C. M. B.

state of servitude on a provision in the treaty of London of the 19th day of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, negotiated between Lord Grenville, on the part of the British government, and by the Honorable John Jay on the part of the Americans. The laws of the country antecedent to this treaty, and while France and Great Britain were successively its sovereigns, have also been resorted to. The question is novel; it is important; it is difficult. Counsel have been twice fully and publicly heard on both sides of it. The right to freedom has been reposed on the peremptory interdiction of the congressional provisions on the general rights of human nature, and on the articles in the treaty of Paris on the 3rd day of September, 1783. The provision in the treaty of 1794 is in the following words: "All settlers and traders shall continue to enjoy unmolested, all their property of every kind. It shall be free to them to sell their lands, houses or effects, or to retain the property thereof at their discretion."

It has been denied that the term property, as here used, includes slaves. That term, it is said, does not apply to the human species in England, and by the laws of the United States of America, made previously to the existence of this treaty, property cannot apply to the human species in this Territory. If the congressional provision and the treaty are in collision, it is further said the treaty cannot repeal the former, and must give way to it. Treaties, it is said, cannot barter away the rights and liberties of the people. No instance has existed of liberty being conferred by law, and afterwards taken away by a repeal of the law. Like a vested right once granted, it is considered forever irrevocable. Great Britain, by the treaty of 1783, ceded this country, and by the ordinance of 1787, liberty was given to all its inhabitants. The acts of provincial parliaments, stipulations between nations themselves, or the acts of either of them singly, cannot, it is said divest and take away the right of liberty thus acquired. It is a vested right; it is held not at the legislative volition of either government, and cannot become the subject of barter between them. Much less can a subsequent compact violate a previous one between different parties. The 6th article of compact made between the several states, and the people of the northwestern country is anterior; it is permanent; it is irrevocable.

These principles involve some important points of the law of nations, and of the constitution of the United States. Before approaching them it will be necessary to decide the construction of the term, as used in the treaty of

1794.

Property is the creature of civilized society. In a state of nature and protected by law it is both the child of caprice and the victim of force. The rights created and protected by civilized society, the tenure of them can be reg