K. Rates of Foreign and Domestic Exchange in Philadelphia in 1838. Bills on London...... France... 10 a fr. 5 17 a 5 25 41 cts. L. Prices of bank notes at Philadelphia during the year 1838. The following banks are quoted, for the first time, as broken, on these dates: January 23, Paterson Bank, New Jersey; May 25, Canton Bank, Ohio; June 16, Bank of Havre-de-Grace and Bank of Prince George's County, Maryland, and the Lumberman's Bank, Pennsylvania. The notes of nearly all the Banks of Pennsylvania were at par throughout the year. The notes of the banks of Erie and Brownsville, Pennsylvania exceeded the average rates of discount; until August they were quoted at 3 a 4 d.; after which the rate was reduced. The notes of the Cumberland Bank of Maryland exceeded the average; from January to October they were at 5 d.; afterward, 2 d. Affair of the Steamboat Caroline. The following report was made to the House by a majority of the Committee, and excited considerable debate. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. Pickens, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made the following report, which was ordered to be printed: The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the Message of the President, transmitting a correspondence with the British Minister in relation to the burning of the steamboat Caroline, and the demand made for the liberation of Mr. Alexander McLeod, respectfully report: It appears that the Steamboat "Caroline" was seized and destroyed in the month of December, 1857. The committee are induced to believe that the facts of the case are as follows: The boat was owned by, and in possession of, a citizen of New York. She was cleared from the City of Buffalo, and on the morning of the 29th of December, 1837, she left the port of Buffalo, bound for Schlosser, upon the American side of the Niagara river, and within the territory of the United States. The original intention seemed to be, to run the boat between Buffalo and Schlosser, or perhaps, from Black Rock dam to Schlosser, and should it seem profitable, it was intended to run her also to Navy Island, and touch at Grand Island and Tonawanda. Her owner was Mr. Wells, said to be a respectable citizen of Buffalo, and it is obvious, his intention in putting up the boat was one of speculation and profit entirely. The excitement upon that portion of the frontier, at this period, had collected a great many in the neighborhood-some from curiosity-some from idleness and others from taking an interest in the unusual and extraordinary collection of adventurous men gathered together at that time on Navy Island. Navy Island was "nominally" in the British " territory." The owner of the Caroline took advantage of these circumstances to make some money with his boat, by running her, as a ferry boat, over to Navy Island. All these facts appear from testimony regularly taken, (see H. R. Doc. No. 302, page 46 and 39, 2d Session, 25th Congress,) and the committee know of no legal evidence to contradict them. There is no proof that any arms or munitions of war were carried in the boat; except, perhaps, one small six pounder field-piece belonging to a passenger. The principal object was to run the boat as a ferry boat from Schlosser on the American side, to Navy Island on the British side. It is believed that, even in war, a neutral power has the right to trade in contraband articles, subject of course, to seizure and confiscation, if taken within the jurisdiction of either of the contending parties. What is contraband of war is not always certain. Treaty stipulations frequently include some articles, and include others recognised in the law of nations. Trading in contraband articles is no excuse for invading the territory and soil of a neutral and independent power, whose private citizens may choose to run the hazards of such a trade. In this instance there were no two foreign powers engaged in war; but all concerned in the outbreak or excitement within the British jurisdiction, claimed to be British subjects, in resistance of the authorities of Canada, a province of the British empire. Even admitting then, that the Caroline was engaged in contraband trade, yet it was with citizens who claimed to be subjects of the same empire with those who were styled the legitimate officers of the Province. Abstractly speaking, how was a private citizen to decide who were right and who wrong in these local disputes? And which portion of citizens of the same province must our citizens refuse to have any communication with? But the boat was merely used for one day as a ferry boat, and on the night of the day she commenced running, she was seized while moored at the wharf in Schlosser, and burnt. Several men were assassinated; certainly one, who fell dead upon the deck. Now the insinuation of the British Minister, that Schlosser was "nominally" within the territory of the United States, may well be retorted, as we can with equal truth say that Navy Island was "nominally" within the "territory" of the British Government; for at the period to which we al lude, the people collected there had as effectually defied Canada authorities as any portion of our people had disregarded ours. Yet British authority thought proper to pass by Navy Island, then in its "nominal" territory, and in the plenitude of its power, to cast the aegis of British jurisdiction over American soil. This was truly extending over us that kind guardianship which they had not the ability at that time to extend to a portion of their own territory, and which recommends itself to us, full as much from its assumption as from its love of right or law. The British Minister is pleased to call the Caroline a "piratical steamboat" The loose epithets of any one, no matter how high in place, cannot make that piracy which the law of nations does not recognise as such. Pirates are freebooters, enemies of the human race; and eminent jurists describe them as ravaging every sea and coast with no flag and no home. Piracy comes under the concurrent jurisdiction of all nations. Even in the worst point of view that it can be considered, those connected with the steamboat Caroline were but aiders and abettors of others engaged in rebellion. And the committee are totally at a loss to know upon what authority rebellion is recognised as piracy. Such confounding of terms is resting the case upon epithets, instead of sound law or facts. But even supposing it to be a "piratical boat," as the Minister asserts it to be; yet the moment it touched our soil it fell under our sovereignty, and no power on earth could rightfully invade it. There is no doctrine more consecrated in English history, than that every human being who touches the soil of Great Britain is immediately covered by British law. Suppose one of her vessels were cut from the banks of the Thames and burnt by Frenchmen, and British citizens were assassinated at night, and the French Minister were to avow that they acted under the orders of his Government, and that the vessel was " piratical,” and the citizens murdered were outlaws -then there is not an Englishman whose heart would not beat high to avenge the wrong, and vindicate the rights of his country. And there is no international law consistent with the separate independence of nations, that sanctions the pursuits of even pirates to murder and arson over the soil and jurisdiction of one of the States of this Confederacy.No greater wrong can be done to a country than invasion of soil. If it can be done with impunity at one point, and on one occasion, it can be done at another, and the nation that submits to it, finally sinks down into drivelling imbecility.— If a representation of the state of things at Schlosser and the conduct of those who had control of the Caroline, had first been made to the proper authorities of New York, or the United States, then there would have been some show at least of respect for our sovereignty and independence, and a disposition to treat us as an equal. But in this case, as if to treat our authorities with contempt, there was no preliminary demand or representation made. It was hoped that the outrage was perpetrated by a party in sudden heat and excitement, upon their own responsibility. But the British Minister now avows that "the act was the public act of persons obeying the constituted authorities of her Majesty's Province," and again affirms that "it was a public act of persons in her Majesty's service, obeying the orders of their superior authorities." If this had been the first and only point of collision with Great Britain it might not have excited such interest, but there is an assumption in most of our intercourse with that great power, revolting to the pride and spirit of independence in a free people. If it be her desire to preserve peace, her true policy would be to do justice, and show that courtesy to equals which she has always demanded from others. The committee do not desire to press views on this part of the subject, particularly as a demand has been made by our Government upon the Government of Great Britain, for explanation as to the outrage committed, the answer to which it is to be hoped will prove satisfactory. As to the other points presented in the demand made by the British Minister for the "liberation" of Alexander McLeod, the committee believe the facts of the case to be, that the steamboat was seized and burnt as stated before, and that a citizen or citizens of New York were murdered in the af. 126 fray. BURNING OF THE STEAMBOAT CAROLINE. And there were reasons to induce a belief that McLeod was particeps criminis. He was at first arrested, and upon various testimony being taken was then discharged. He was afterwards arrested a second time. Upon the evider.ce then presented, he was imprisoned to await his trial. There was no invasion of British territory to seize or take him. But upon his being voluntarily within our territory, he was arrested as any citizen of the United States, charged with a similar offence, might have been, we know of no law of nations that would exempt a man from arrest and imprisonment for offences charged to be committed against the peace and dignity" of a State because he is a subject of Great Britain, or because he committed the crime at the instigation or under the authority of British Provincial officers; much less do we know of any law that would justify the President to deliver him up without trial, at the demand and upon the assertion as to the facts, of any agent of the British Government. If we had been at open war with Great Britain, and McLeod had committed the offences charged, then he might have fallen under the rules and regulations of war, and been treated as a prisoner of the United States Government, and would have been subject to But as the alleged criminal the laws of nations in war. acts, in which McLeod is charged to be implicated, were committed in profound peace, it is a crime, as far as he may he concerned, solely against the "peace and dignity” of the State of New York, and her criminal jurisdiction is complete and exclusive. If the crimes committed be such as to make a man hostis humani generis—an outlaw--a pirate, in the legal acceptation of the term, then under the law of nations, the United States courts and tribunals would have jurisdiction. But the offence charged in this case committed as it was in time of peace, as far as this individual was concerned, was one purely against the lex loci, and coming exclusively within the criminal jurisdiction of the tribunals of New York. under the laws of nations, the States have exclusive jurisdic tion, and the trial and punishment for offences against them, are incident to their separate sovereignty. It is not pretended in this case that there is any treaty stipulation under which the demand is made; and the Federal Executive, under our system, has no power but what is conferred by the Constitution, or by special law of Congress. In the former it is declared that "the Executive power is vested in a President of the United States," and that the power is then to be pointed out and defined by special laws passed from time to time, imposing such duties as are thought proper and expedient by Congress. Your committee deem it dangerous for the Executive to exercise any power over a subject-matter not conferred by treaty or by law; and to exercise it in any case in conflict with State jurisdiction, would be worse than dangerous, it would be usurpation. But your committee forbear to press these points further at present, and they would not have said as much on such clear questions of international law, but that in this case the demand for liberation has been made by the accredited agent of a great power, and under circumstances of peculiar aggravation and excitement. We have other points of difference with Great Britain, which add interest to every question that arises between us at present. Neither our North-eastern nor North-western boundaries are yet settled with her, and the subject is not entirely free from difficulty. She has recently seized our vessels and exercised a power involving the right of search, under the pretext of suppressing the foreign slave trade, which, if persevered in, will sweep our commerce from the coast of Africa, and which is incompatible with our rights as a maritime power. She has recently, in her intercourse with us, refused indemnity and denied our rights to property, on a subject-matter vital to near one half the States of this Confederacy, and which, considering her military position at Bermuda and her growing power in the West Indies, is of the last importance to our national indepen·lence. All these subjects make every question between us, at this peculiar juncture, of the deepest interest. Besides this, we are both permanently destined to have perhaps, the most extensive commerce of modern nations. Our flags float side by side, over every sea, and bay and in She moves already upon her objects with an ambition that knows no bounds. And wherever she has had a conflict of interest she has rarely yielded to any power. At this moment she presents to the civilized world the spectacle of the greatest military and commercial power in combination ever known. From her vast possessions in every quarter of the globe, and her peculiar commercial system, she has been made the reservoir of the wealth of nations. The Minister, in his letter of the 13th of December, 1840, says: "it is quite notorious that Mr. McLeod was not one of the party engaged in the destruction of the steamboat Caroline; and that the pretended charge upon which he has been imprisoned rests only upon the perjured testimony of certain Canadians, outlaws and their abettors," &c. This may perchance all be so; but it would be asking a great deal to require an American court to yield jurisdiction, and sur-let of the known globe. render up a prisoner charged with offences against the law, upon the mere ipse dixit of any man, no matter how high in authority. Whether McLeod be guilty or not guilty, is the very point upon which an American jury alone have a right to decide. Jurisdiction in State tribunals over criminal cases, and trial by a jury of the venue, are essential points in American jurisprudence. And it is a total misapprehension as to the nature of our system, to suppose that there is any right in the Federal Executive to arrest the verHer internal resources, skill, labor, and machinery, with dict of the one, or thwart the jurisdiction of the other. If such a power existed, and were exercised, it would effectu- her capital, are beyond calculation. Her natural position, ally overthrow, and upon a vital point, the separate sove- being about midway the coast of Europe, gives her great reignty and independence of these States. The Federal control over the outlets and currents of commerce. Her military occupation of Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Executive might be clothed with power to deliver up fugitives from justice for offences committed against a foreign | islands, and recently of St. Jean d'Acre, give her ascendanState, but even then it might not be obligatory to do so, un-cy on the Mediterranean and the Levant, while St. Helena Then Bomless it were made matter of treaty stipulation. This duty and the Cape of Good Hope give her possession over the and right in an Executive has generally been considered as dormant, until made binding by treaty arrangement. But when the matter is reversed, and demand is made, not of fugitives from justice for offences committed against a foreign power, but for the liberation of a man charged with offence against the peace and dignity of one of our own States, then it is, that the demand becomes preposterous in the extreme. The fact the offences were committed under the sanction of provincial authorities does not alter the case, unless we were in a state of war. In such cases as the present, the power to deliver up could not be conferred. It could only be conferred in those cases over which jurisdiction was not delegated by the Federal Constitution, for instance, as treason, which is an offence against the conjoined sovereignty of the States, as defined in the Constitution. Over all cases except those defined in the Constitution, and those coming clearly currents of trade along those extensive coasts. Her positions all over the world are at this moment, in a military point of view, equal to a million of men under arms. Her continual conflicts in the mighty regions of the East, only enable her officers to become skillful and to improve in the art of war, while her great armies and extensive fleets |