Conventions in 1831,1833, between Great Brit western coast of Africa from Cape Verde (15° north lat.) to the tenth degree of south latitude, and to the thirteenth degree of west longitude from the meridian of Paris, and also around Madagascar, Cuba, and Porto France and Rico, as well as on the coast of Brazil to the distance ain. into the sea of twenty leagues. It was agreed, however, that suspected vessels, escaping beyond this range of twenty leagues, might be detained and visited if kept in sight. As to steps subsequent to capture, no mixed commission was allowed, but the captured vessel was to be tried in the country to whose jurisdiction it belonged, and by its courts. Quintuple 1841. By the quintuple treaty of December 20, 1841, to which Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France, were parties, all these powers, excepting the latter, treaty of conceded to one another the mutual right of search within very wide zones of ocean between Africa and America, and on the eastern side of Africa across the Indian Ocean. France, however, owing to popular clamor, and the dislike entertained by almost the entire chamber of deputies toward the right of search, withheld her ratification and adhered to her arrangements of 1831 and 1833, above spoken of, until the year 1845. In that year she withdrew her consent to the mutual right of search altogether, as the terms of the conventions allowed her to do, cooperate with Great Britain slave-trade by sending a squadron to the coast of Af --- but stipulated to in suppressing the France, in draws her 1845, withconsent to search. a right of rica. Each power engaged at first to keep twenty-six vessels on the coast for this service, but the number on the part of France was afterwards to be reduced to one half. This is believed to be the existing arrangement. § 217. of the The Treaty of Ghent, which terminated the war between the United States and Great Britain on the 24th Obligations of December, 1814, contains the following article: "Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice; and whereas United States in re gard to the slave-trade. both His Britannic Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object." The act passed by Congress in 1818, which increased the penalties hanging over this traffic and extended their application; that of 1819, which authorized the sending of armed vessels to the coast of Africa, and the confiscation of slave-trading ships belonging to citizens or foreign residents, together with the effects on board; and the act of 1820, by which the slavetrade, wherever carried on, was declared to be piracy both for all persons on American craft so employed, and for American citizens serving on board vessels of any nationality, — these several acts show that the United States were sincerely endeavoring to accomplish so desirable an object" as the entire abolition of this infamous traffic. But the trade continued, notwithstanding such legislation, and it would appear that vessels and crews from the United States were concerned in it, acting in the interest of Cubans, but especially of Portuguese in Brazil. The British government, therefore, from time to time, urged on that of the United States the adoption of more effectual measures to comply with the stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent. In particular it urged that the two nations should concede to each other the right of search, with the single object in view of ascertaining whether a suspected vessel was really concerned in the slavetrade. To this the United States uniformly declined giving their assent. The right of search was an odious one even in war, and peculiarly odious, because British cruisers had exercised it in an overbearing and illegitimate way, when the United States were a neutral nation. It would, if admitted, naturally involve a mixed court for deciding cases of capture, which court, stationed in a foreign country, and composed of judges not all of them amenable to our laws, did not afford to native citizens brought before it those securities which are guaranteed to them by the constitution. Meanwhile, in February, 1823, by a vote of one hundred 28, 1862. and thirty-one to nine, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution: "That the President of the Resolution United States be requested to enter upon and to pros- of February ecute, from time to time, such negotiations with the several maritime powers of Europe and America, as he may deem expedient for the effectual abolition of the African slavetrade, and its ultimate denunciation as piracy under the law of nations by the consent of the civilized world." The Secretary of State, Mr. J. Q. Adams, in transmitting this resolution to the British negotiator, says that "the President has no hesitation in acting upon the expressed and almost unanimous sense of the House of Representatives, so far as to declare the willingness of the American Union to join with other nations in the common engagement to pursue and punish those who shall continue to practice this crime, and to fix them irrevocably in the class and under the denomination of pirates." Most unfortunately the international arrangements here contemplated were not carried into effect. The British Government conceived, as we presume, that it would be very difficult to bring the other nations into similar agreements, and in fact did not, itself, carry through Parliament a law making the slave-trade piracy, until March 31, 1824. Again, therefore, the old plan of mutual search was urged; but, although there was some little expectation that an agreement might be reached, on the basis of delivering over captured vessels to the jurisdiction of their own country, and of holding the captor responsible for any improper acts to the tribunal of the captured party, yet no definite result came from the correspondence between Mr. Adams and the British minister at Washington. This correspondence deserves especial attention from the ability with which the Secretary of State discusses the right of search. The negotiations were now transferred to England, where, on the 13th of March, in 1824, the two governments, Negotiations by their representatives, signed a convention which in England. nearly accomplished the object at which they had of 1824. been aiming. By this convention the officers of certain public Convention vessels, duly instructed to cruise on the coasts of Africa, America, and the West Indies, were authorized to detain and examine vessels suspected of being engaged in the illicit traffic in slaves. If, after search, such vessels were found to be so employed, they were to be delivered up to the officers of a vessel of the same nationality, who might be on the station; or, if there were no cruisers nigh, were to be conveyed to the country to which such slavers belonged, or to one of its dependencies, and placed within the reach of its tribunals. Officers, exercising the right of search in a vexatious or injurious manner, were to be personally liable in costs and damages to the masters or owners of vessels detained and visited. In all cases of search the boarding officers were to give certificates to the captains, identifying themselves, and declaring their object to be simply and solely that of ascertaining whether the merchantman was engaged in the slave-trade. Other provisions secured the right of challenging witnesses, and the payment of their expenses. The tenth article we give in its own words: "The high contracting parties declare that the right, which, in the foregoing articles, they have each reciprocally conceded, of detaining, visiting, capturing, and delivering over for trial the merchant vessels of the other engaged in the African slave-trade, is wholly and exclusively grounded on the consideration of their having made that traffic piracy by their respective laws; and further, that the reciprocal concession of said right, as guarded, limited, and regulated by this convention, shall not be so construed as to authorize the detention or search of the merchant vessels of either nation by the officers of the navy of the other, except vessels engaged, or suspected of being engaged, in the African slave-trade; or for any other purpose whatever than that of seizing and delivering up the persons and vessels, concerned in that traffic, for trial and adjudication by the tribunals and laws of their own country; nor be taken to affect in any other way the existing rights of either of the high contracting parties. And they do also hereby agree, and engage to use their influence, respectively, with other maritime and civilized powers, to the end that the African slave-trade may be declared to be piracy under the law of nations." Amended by Senate of States; then re jected by Great Brit When this convention came before the Senate of the United States, they amended it as follows: (1.) Either party might renounce the convention after six months' notice. (2.) The cruising of vessels on the search for slavers was limited to Africa and the West Indies, America being stricken out. (3.) Article VII. of ain. the convention speaks of trying for piracy citizens or subjects of either country found on board a vessel not "carrying the flag of the other party, nor belonging to the citizens or subjects of either, but engaged in the illicit traffic of slaves, and lawfully seized by the cruisers of the other party." This, also, was struck out by the Senate. Such cases would be those of American citizens on board of Portuguese or other slavers subject to search by special treaty with Great Britain, who were committing an offense capital by the laws of their own country, but not capital by those of the country of the vessel. The convention, thus mutilated, went back to England to be rejected, and so the affair ended. § 218. Treaty of in 1842. The treaty of Washington, signed August 9, 1842, contains new arrangements in regard to the right of search which have served until of late as the rule of practice Washington for the cruisers of the two countries. In Article VIII. of that treaty occur the following words: "Whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have at various times been passed by the two governments, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried on; and whereas the United States of America and Her Majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, are determined that, so far as it may be in their power, it shall be effectually abolished; the parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce |