Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

who lived adjacent to the frontier. A military corps was organized to aid the Canadians in their struggle for independence. The federal government adopted stringent measures to enforce the neutrality laws. During these excitements an event took place which threatened serious embarrassment to the relations of the United States with Great Britain. On the night of Dec. 29, 1837, an armed force from Canada crossed the Niagara river, attacked a party of American citizens, who were then asleep in the steamboat Caroline, lying in the river at Schlosser. One man was killed; the rest were driven ashore. Having cut out the steamboat, the invaders set her on fire, towed her into the current of the stream and sent her flaming over Niagara Falls. This outrage everywhere excited the deepest indignation. In the border counties, especially, the people were almost in a frenzy of passion.

Three years after this occurrence, in the winter of 1840, a citizen of Canada, named Alexander M'Leod, while on a visit to Niagara county, was said to have boasted that he was an active member of the party which destroyed the Caroline. As he was known to be a warm loyalist, the assertion was readily believed. He was arrested on the charge of arson, and committed to jail. In due course of law he was subsequently indicted for that crime, and detained for trial. Upon this the British minister at Washington, Mr. Fox, made a reclamation on Mr. Van Buren, then president of the United States, in behalf of the prisoner. He insisted that the destruction of the Caroline was an act of war, for which the British government should be held responsible, and not a private individual. Hence he protested against the trial of M'Leod, and demanded his release from imprisonment. The president did not assent to the position of Mr. Fox; he maintained that the act was a violation of the jurisdiction of New York, and of the United States in time of peace. Even assuming the views of Mr. Fox to be correct, the matter belonged to the courts of New York for judicial examination, with which the federal government could not interfere.

The decision of Mr. Van Buren was immediately communicated to Gov. Seward, while Mr. Fox, on the other hand, submitted the subject for instruction to his government at home. Gov. Seward promptly and dispassionately replied to the president accepting his decision on the part of New York. This reply did not reach Washington until after the 4th of March, 1841, when the administra

tion had passed into the hands of Gen. Harrison. The affair was accordingly entrusted to Mr. Webster, the secretary of state under the new president.

Meantime Gov. Seward had dispatched the attorney-general of the state, Ion. Willis Hall, to Niagara, in order to ascertain the facts relative to the transaction. The result of the investigation convinced the governor that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the indictment, as it appeared that M'Leod was not even on the American side of the river during the night on which the Caroline was destroyed.

Mr. Fox was instructed by his government to insist on the positions which he had assumed. He accordingly demanded the surrender of M'Leod, menacing the president with hostilities in case of non-compliance. In reply to Mr. Fox, Gen. Harrison conceded that M'Leod could not be held to trial for the alleged offence, thus confirming the views of the British government. This decision was communicated to Gov. Seward, in a letter from the secretary of state, through Mr. Crittenden, the attorney-general of the United States, who announced the wish of the president that a nolle prosequi should be entered, and a stop put to further proceedings. Mr. Crittenden was dispatched by the president to Niagara county, with directions to appear in court in behalf of M'Leod, and to urge upon Gov. Seward the entering of a nolle prosequi. In conversing upon the subject, Mr. Crittenden informed Gov. Seward, that Great Britain would declare war against the United States unless the surrender of M'Leod took place. It fully appeared, however, on further explanation, the retaliation threatened by Great Britain was made contingent not on the detention, nor on the trial, nor even on the conviction of M'Leod, but on his execution. This view was sustained by the correspondence with Mr. Fox. Gov. Seward then informed Mr. Crittenden of the course he should pursue. In the first place, it was not probable that M'Leod would be convicted, as there was no proof of his guilt-but if convicted, he could not be executed without the governor's consent; and inasmuch as both governments agreed that his conviction would be an infringement of international law, however he might differ from that opinion, he should feel bound to release the prisoner from his sentence. He added, moreover, that all the questions belonging to the case, must come under the cognizance of the state court, and therefore it was necessary for the

trial to proceed. But this course involved no risk of compromising our relations with Great Britain, for the reasons already stated.

The trial, accordingly, was postponed. Mr. Crittenden returned to Washington to lay the views of Gov. Seward before the president and his cabinet. It was understood that if these views were not approved, the subject should receive further examination. But the sudden death of Gen. Harrison, and the consequent dissolution of the cabinet, left the matter as it was.

Meantime, Joshua A. Spencer, Esq., who had been already retained as counsel for M'Leod, was appointed U. S. district attorney for the northern district of New York, although against the earnest remonstrance of Gov. Seward. At the succeeding term of the supreme court, Mr. Spencer appeared with instructions from the president, and demanded M'Leod's discharge from the indictment, without the formality of a trial. The motion was resisted by Willis Hall, Esq., in behalf of the state, under the direction of the governor. After elaborate arguments on both sides, the demand for M'Leod's release was denied, sustaining the ground taken by President Van Buren and Gov. Seward in opposition to the views of President Tyler.

In spite of the fact that war was suspended not on the trial, but on the execution of M'Leod, the public mind was greatly excited by the fear of a collision with Great Britain. Gov. Seward was reproached in many political and commercial circles, with pursuing recklessly a course that tended to plunge the two nations in war. But this had no effect on his determination. He was convinced of the justice of his measures, and resolutely proceeded to carry

them into effect.

At length the time for holding the court arrived. It was convened at Utica, remote from the immediate scene of excitement. On trial before a learned and impartial judge, M'Leod was acquitted for want of evidence that he was concerned in the outrage. He was then sent into the British territory by Gov. Seward, under an escort, and safely delivered on the north side of the Niagara river.

This critical transaction affords a fresh illustration of Gov. Seward's firmness and sagacity. Had he listened to the advisers whose fears dictated to their judgment, and followed the cowardly policy of President Tyler, he would have disgraced both the state

and the nation in the eyes of the world. But his bold and manly course sustained the honor of the country. The fortunate conclusion of the affair restored the public mind to tranquillity, and strengthened the administration of the state in the esteem of the people.*

The Erie and Champlain canals were completed in 1825. This great enterprise of internal improvements had been brought to a prosperous completion by De Witt Clinton, against the strenuous opposition of the Albany regency. But even before these works were finished, it was seen that they could not attain the objects of their construction without the addition of lateral canals, connecting with the Susquehanna and other rivers on the south, and with lake Ontario on the north. The Erie canal was but forty feet wide and four feet deep. It was soon evident, that instead of a canal of such limited capacity, a ship canal was necessary to unite the navigation of the lakes with that of Hudson river. As early as 1835, it was found necessary to replace the locks and other structures of the Erie canal. At the same time, the state debt incurred in its construction, and that of the Champlain canal, had been virtually paid. Under these favorable circumstances, the legislature voted the enlargement of the Erie canal on a scale to be fixed by the canal board. The scale adopted was seventy feet wide and seven feet deep, with double instead of single locks, as before used. But the act limited the expenditures for the enlargement to the annual surplus of the tolls after deducting a large amount for the general purposes of the state treasury.

In 1836, the construction of the Genessee Valley and the Black River canals was decided on by the legislature. These works were intended as branches of the system of internal improvements which had previously been completed, including the Oswego, Seneca, and Cayuga and Crooked Lake and Chenango canals. A loan of three millions of dollars had been made, during the same year, to the New York and Erie Railroad Company, for the aid of their enterprise. The next year saw the progress of all these works, while the canal commissioners recommended a more vigorous prosecution of the enlargement of the Erie Canal. The recommendation was urgently renewed by Gov. Marcy and the canal commissioners in 1838. But the state was then suffering from a commercial revulsion. The comptroller, Mr. Flagg, indirectly *See Correspondence, Vol. II. pp. 547-586.

opposed the recommendations, in a report insisting on the necessity of taxation for the support of the treasury. This report was answered by Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles, chairman of the committee of ways and means in the assembly, who showed that the increase of tolls on the canals would sustain a loan of thirty millions of dollars, reimbursing it in twenty years, or of forty millions of dollars, reimbursing it in twenty-eight years. In accordance with this estimate, the legislature, in 1838, made an appropriation of four millions of dollars for the prosecution of the enlargement, and authorized the loan of eight hundred thousand dollars on the credit of the state, in aid of the Central and other railroads.

Such was the condition of internal improvements in the state, when Mr. Seward entered upon the executive office on the first of January, 1839. The state debt was then eleven millions of dollars; but there were four millions of dollars in the treasury available for the public works, reducing the actual debt to about seven millions of dollars. Gov. Seward vigorously followed up the legislative policy of 1838. He recommended that measures should be adopted to secure the enlargement of the Erie Canal, and the completion of the lateral canals, before the year 1845.

The report of Mr. Flagg, the comptroller, who retired on the coming in of the whig administration, presented an alarming picture of debt, taxation and bankruptcy, as the consequences of perseverance in the public works. Mr. Flagg was supported by the opposition party in the legislature and throughout the state, while Gov. Seward was sustained by the whigs with great unanimity.

To increase the embarrassments of the whig administration, and to shake the public confidence in the ability of the state to complete the system in which it was engaged, it was now discovered that the canal commissioners who had recommended the new enterprises had made too low an estimate of their cost, which, instead of fifteen millions three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, for the enlargement of the Erie and the construction of the Genessee Valley and the Black River canals, would amount to thirty millions four hundred and forty-four thousand dollars.

The people were alarmed by this unexpected announcement. Oppressed by pecuniary difficulties in every department of business, the public was divided in opinion. The whigs maintained the wisdom and necessity of completing the public works in spite of the errors of the estimate. But the opposing party condemned

« ForrigeFortsett »