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, US. 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.

and it was also stipulated on the part of the French government, that this 25,000,000 millions of francs should 'be paid at Paris in six annual instalments of four millions one hundred and sixtysix thousand six hundred and sixty-six francs and sixty-six centimes each, into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized by the government of the United States to receive it.' The first instalment to be paid 'at the expiration of one year next following the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and the others at successive intervals of a year, one after another, till the whole shall be paid.'-"This treaty was duly ratified in the manner prescribed by the constitution of both countries, and the ratification was exchanged at the city of Washington on the 2d of February, 1832. The faith of the French nation having been thus solemnly pledged, through its constitutional organ, for the liquidation and ultimate payment of the long deferred claims of our citizens, as also for the adjustment of other points of great and reciprocal benefits to both countries, and the United States having, with a fidelity and promptitude by which their conduct will, I trust, be always characterized, done every thing that was necessary to carry the treaty into full and fair effect on their part, counted with the most perfect confidence, on equal fidelity and promptitude on the part of the French government.'-'Not only has the French government been thus wanting in the performance of the stipulations it has so solemnly entered into with the United States, but its omissions have been marked by circumstances which would seem to leave us without satisfactory evidences that such performance will certainly take place at a future period. Advice of the exchange of ratification reached Paris prior to the 8th of April, 1832. The French Chambers were then sitting, and continued in session until the 21st of that month; and although one instalment of the indemnity was [would be] payable on the 2d of February, 1833, one year after the exchange of ratification no application was made to the Chambers for the required appropriation.*-The next session of the Chambers commenced on the 19th of November, 1832, and continued until the 25th of April, 1833. Notwithstanding the omission to pay the first instalment had been made the subject of earnest remonstrance on our part, the treaty with the United States, and a bill making the necessary appropriations to execute it, were not laid before the Chambers until the 6th of April, nearly five months after its meeting, and only nineteen days before the close of the session.'+-'I regret to say that the pledges made through the minister of France have not been redeemed. The new Chambers met on the 31st of July last, and although the subject of fulfilling the treaties was alluded to

*No reasonable man could complain of this as a delay or neglect, for such an appropriation would have been nearly one year in advance.

But General Jackson does not tell us that even at that time, only two months had elapsed since the first instalment was due. What haste!

in the speech from the throne, no attempt was made by the king or his cabinet to procure an appropriation to carry it into execution. The reasons given for this omission, ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT in an ordinary case, are not consistent with the expectations founded upon the assurances given here, for there is no constitutional obstacle to entering into legislative business at the first meeting of the Chambers.' Now I would ask if there ever were more frivolous grounds taken, for harsh complaints made in the most vituperative language that our government could use towards another and preserve peace. Efforts by the king to procure an appropriation are certainly recounted in one passage, and denied in another—a bill is admitted to have been reported very shortly after the first instalment became due, notwithstanding the precipitate, indecorous, and urgent pressure of our government for immediate payment, in effect sufficient to give umbrage instead of gaining its point. Nay, conciliatory 'reasons' were even tendered as an excuse for this small delay-but nothing would pacify General Jackson and appease his itching to clutch the French king by the throat. He therefore urged Congress to the harsh measure of reprisals, which would doubtless have eventuated in a French war to gratify a President's pique, or a Shylock's demand of a pound of flesh. His words are 'It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty ; and in case it be refused or longer delayed, TAKE REDRESS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.'-'I recommend that a law be passed authorizing reprisals upon French property, in case provisions shall not be made for the payment of the debt at the approaching session of the Chambers.' And suppose Congress had concurred in that folly, would it have procured the appropriation for the debt, or an appropriation for a war?

I shall now return to General Jackson's first message, in order to resume the text, for a moment, preparatory to concluding what I have further to say in this CHAPTER respecting it. Having stated, that 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, and having been somewhat particular in his views respecting the two former, as I have noticed, the ex-president next gave but a cursory statement of his instructions to his then recently appointed minister to the court of Spain, in which I see nothing that calls for special remark. He then says 'With other European powers our intercourse is on the most friendly footing.' That might be a justifiable expression, in the view of the Jacksonian diplomacy, notwithstanding his subsequent policy of pinching the toes of the king of the two Sicilies, and the like of Naples, for claims that were then subsisting; for, he subsequently, in his third annual, characterized those and other claims in the following manner, viz: "The conclusion of a treaty for

indemnity with France, seemed to present a favourable opportunity to renew our claims of a similar nature on other powers; and particularly in the case of those upon Naples, more especially as in the course of former negociations with that power, our failure to induce France to render us justice, was used as an argument against us.' So that there was, in fact, as much occasion to make harsh report of the case of Naples from the first, as of the rest. Again, in the third annual, he says, 'Our demands upon the government of the two Sicilies, are of a peculiar nature. The injuries on which they are founded are not denied, nor are the atrocity and perfidy under which those injuries were perpetrated, attempted to be extenuated.' How, then, General Jackson could, with sincerity, in his first message, have considered our intercourse with those powers as being 'on the most friendly footing,' would be superfluous for me to express an opinion. Presently after concluding his survey of our European relations, in his first message, he says, "The claims of our citizens upon the South American governments are in a train of settlement.' And then, passing on to our Mexican relations, he disguises their true character in so artful a manner, as to make a complete diversion from their real condition, by raising an issue upon the situation of our minister near that Republic, and even distorting or dissembling ITS REAL IMPORT-the momentous nature of which, together with the other complicated wrongs between the two countries with which it had an ominous connection, must be deferred for the next chapter.

CHAPTER III.

The duplicity of the Jacksonian diplomacy continued, as to our relations with the Mexican Republic.*

Or the multifarious and complicated evidences of the disingenousness and insincerity of Andrew Jackson, which have been cursorily sketched, in the two preceding chapters, there is not an instance which approaches even to a faint comparrison with

* It will doubtless be desirable to the reader to have a statement of the negociations that had taken place, and were still pending between Mexico and the United States, at the commencement of General Jackson's administration. This I cannot do in a more satisfactory manner, than by an extract from Mr. Adam's speech, generally called his Texas speech, delivered about the close of the last session of Congress I therefore make the following extract from that speech; viz. page 106: "He [Mr. Adams] had stated, the day before, that before the United States acknowledged the independence of the Mexican Republic, a proposal was made by them to the government of the United States through the agency of Mr. Torrens, then Chargé d'Affaires from the Republic of Colombia, the independence of which had been previously recognized by Mr. Monroe, that 'the limits between the two countries be