to the war department and his letter to the Spanish officers who commanded in the different fortresses, and are these:-That Spain had not observed her treaty stipulations with the the United States, as it related to the Florida Indians, whose peaceable conduct she was bound to guarantee to the United States. That she had furnished those Indians at war with the United States with arms, ammunition and supplies, necessary to carry on the war. Here the committee would observe, that they are neither the advocates nor the apologists of Spain; there can be no doubt but she had by the violation of her engagements, given the United States sufficient cause of war; but they defend the constitution by saying that Gen. Jackson had no power to declare nor make the war; that neither he, nor even the President of the United States, had any discretion or power to judge what was or was not cause of war; this the constitution had wisely lodged in Congress. The treaty with Spain still existed; it was made by the constitution, the supreme law of the land, and had Spain violated, on her part, every article of that treaty, still the executive of the United States, who is bound to see the laws 66 faithfully executed," must, in good faith to wards Spain, have observed on our part that treaty; and the obligation of preserving the peace of the nation would have remained until the treaty should have been revoked or annulled by Congress. Furnishing the Indians with arms, ammunition and supplies, were so many violations of treaty stipula

tions, and might have been considered good cause of war by Congress; but of this Gen. Jackson was not the judge. His duty was pointed out; it was to subdue and punish the Seminole Indians, with whom we were at war; for this purpose he was ordered to pursue them into the territorial limits of Spain, and over a part of which territory those Indians had, at least, a qualified right of possession and property. Under these orders no act of aggression on the Spanish authorities could have been designed, nor can any such acts be justified. Spain, before she could become or be made a party to this war, must have merged her neutral character in that of the enemy, and clearly identified herself with the Seminole Indians, and by acts of open and undisguised hostility to Gen. Jackson, have opposed him by physical, not moral force.

But the weakness of the Spanish authorities is urged in justification of this outrage upon our constitution; and is the weakness of an independent power to disparage their neutral rights, or furnish pretences for a powerful neighbour to weaken them further by hostile aggression? And is it thus we are to be furnished by an American officer with a justification for the dismemberment of Poland, the capture of the Danish fleet by Great Britain and the subjugation of Europe by Buonaparté; and shall the United States be called upon to imitate the example, or silently acquiesce, and thereby subscribe to doctrines and approve measures, that are in direct opposition to the repeated and invariable declarations of the government,

vernment, given to this nation and the world through the official medium of presidential messages and the correspondence of all her public ministers, and sanctioned by all her public laws on the subject of neutral rights? Will it not be said that we have changed our national policy?, Shall we not be addressed in the following language, by the nations of Europe?

"The time was when the United States were also weak; she had no navy, she had no army. In those days she was a strong advocate for neutral rights, anxious that free ships should make free goods; that the neutral flag of the republic should protect all sailing under it, ever protesting against and complaining of the violation of her neutral rights by the belligerents of Europe; but these times have passed away, the nation has tried her strength in battle and found herself quite equal to the struggle; she has had time to strengthen her army and increase her navy; her former weakness forgotten, her former precepts abandoned, and feeling power and forgetting right, she walks over a prostrate constitution, to conquer and subdue a miserable and feeble, though neutral colony, whose very weakness (pleaded in excuse for the aggression) should have rather constituted an appeal to a generous people for protection." In this unfavourable light, the committee have too much reason to fear, will the civilized world view this transaction; and if sanctioned by the nation, they regret to say there will be too much reason thus to consider it.

But there are still other rea sons disclosed and facts developed, that discover the motives of the commanding officer more fully than those above stated. More than two months after this campaign had ended and the Seminole war was terminated, another expedition is planned, and the land and naval forces of the United States ordered to execute it, which is, to reduce the fortress of St. Augustine, the capital of East Florida. The reasons offered for this measure are stated in his orders to general Gaines, dated Nashville, Aug. 7, 1818, and are as follows:

"I have noted with attention major Twiggs' letter, marked No. 5. I contemplated that the agents of Spain or the officers at Fort St. Augustine would excite the Indians to hostility, and furnish them with the means of war. It will be necessary to obtain evidence substantiating this fact, and that the hostile Indians have been fed and furnished from the garrison of St. Augustine. This being obtained, should you deem your force sufficient, you will proceed to take and garrison Fort St. Augustine with American troops and hold the garrison prisoners until you hear from the president of the United States; or transport them to Cuba, as in your judgment, under existing circumstances, you may think best.

"Let it be remembered, that the proceedings carried on by me, or this order, is not on the ground that we are at war with Spain, it is on the ground of selfpreservation, bottomed on the broad basis of the law of nature

and

and of nations, and justified by giving peace and security to our frontiers; hence the necessity of procuring evidence of the fact of the agents or officers of Spain having excited the Indians to continue the war against us, and that they have furnished them with the means of carrying on the war; this evidence being obtained, you will (if your force is sufficient) permit nothing to prevent you from reducing Fort St. Augustine, except a positive order from the department of

war.

"Orders some time since have been given to the officer of the ordnance commanding at Charleston, to have in readiness a complete battering train, the number and calibre of the guns pointed -out; I have no doubt you will find them in readiness.

"I inclose you the report of captain Henley, of the naval force on that station; you will open a correspondence with commandant A. J. Dallas to insure his cooperation, provided it should be required."

In this projected expedition, it was not thought necessary or expedient to consult the executive branch of the government; the order sent to general Gaines was peremptory, on the discovery being made that the Indians had been supplied with ammunition and provisions and excited to war; the blow was to be struck, and nothing but an express order from the secretary of war was to prevent it. Long before this riod the commanding general had, by his letters to the secretary of war, declared the Seminole war at an end, and after which not a

pe

single new act of hostility had been committed. Yet in this state of peace, is a military officer directed to ascertain certain facts, and on such facts being substantiated, to make war on the neutral colony of a nation in peace and amity with the United States; thus disregarding not only the legislative and executive authorities of the United States, but setting at naught the usages of all civilized nations, by making war without a previous and public declaration. Were the nation subject to the will of a military despot, and were there no constitutional barriers to the inordinate exercise of military ambition, more than this could scarcely have been expected. It is with pain the committee are strained to make these observations; but where the vital principles of the constitution have been violated, as they conceive, it would be criminal in them, under the instructions they have received from the senate and the duty they owe the nation, to be silent. Silence on their part would have been considered an acquiescence in those measures, and they fear this precedent and example may be pleaded and followed on future occasions.

con

If these things be admitted in the south, will they not be considered as authorized in the north? Are there not fortresses there to be won and provinces to be conquered, and are there not Indians in that quarter likewise, and may not the officer in command find means to prove that those Indians have been, or hereafter may be furnished by the British with arms and munitions of war; and if so,

may

may he not follow the example set in the south, and add something to his stock of military fame by reducing the British fortresses of Canada, and unfurling the star-spangled banner of this nation on the walls of Quebec ?

We hope better things of the distinguished officer at the head of our armies, and we had hoped better things of the hero of New Orleans; but we have been disappointed; and if the conduct of the officers in the south be sanctioned and approved by the nation, we are free to declare that the reduction of Quebec (where Montgomery fell, unable to conquer) would present a much stronger claim to public approbation.

It is necessary here to remark, that a copy of the order issued by general Jackson to general Gaines, for the reduction of St. Augustine, was transmitted to the secretary of war, and a countermanding order promptly dispatched to general Gaines, which reached him before the military expedition set on foot by general Jackson had commenced; and thus was suddenly arrested a military scheme as unconstitutional as it was impolitic), and which might, as stated by the secretary of war in his letter of the 8th day of September, 1818, have involved this nation in a war with all Europe.

In thus promptly prohibiting the unauthorized seizure, at the will of a commanding general, of the possessions of a neighbour ing nation with whom the United States are at peace, the committee recognize that sacred regard to the rights of other nations, which

ought never to be departed from by the executive of a free country, and that vigilant attention to the conduct of the officers of the army which is necessary to secure a due subordination of the military to the civil power.

They consider that on this occasion the executive of the United States has (by promptly restoring St. Mark's and Pensacola, wrested from Spain in violation of instructions) pursued the course that the constitution demanded, that all former precedents justified, and to which the public sentiment gave a decided approba

tion.

In reviewing the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, your committee cannot but consider it as an unnecessary act of severity on the part of the commanding general, and a departure from that mild and humane system towards prisoners, which, in all our conflicts with savage or civilized nations, has heretofore been considered not only honourable to the national character, but conformable to the dictates of sound policy. These prisoners were subjects of Great Britain, with whom the United States are at peace. Having left their country, and united their fates with savages with whom the United States were at war, they forfeited their claim to the protection of their own government, and subjected themselves to the same treatment, which might, according to the practice and principles of the American government, be extended towards those with whom they were associated. No process of reasoning can degrade them below the savages with

whom

whom they were connected. As prisoners of war, they were entitled to claim from the American government that protection which the most savage of our foes have uniformly experienced, when disarmed and in our power. HuHumanity shudders at the idea of a cold-blooded execution of prisoners disarmed and in the power of the conqueror. And although savages, who respect no laws, may, according to the strict principles of the law of nations, have their own system of cruelty inflicted on them by way of retaliation, it is believed that such a system would degrade and debase the civilized nation who could resort to it, and is not only repugnant to the mild principles of the Christian religion, but a violation of those great principles of moral rectitude which distinguish the American character. Retaliation, in the United States, has always been confined to specified acts of cruelty. It is not believed that any attempt has ever been made to retaliate for charges so general as those exhibited against Arbuthnot and Ambrister, viz. "Inciting the Indians to war." During the revolutionary war, only two cases occurred of persons seized for purposes of retaliation, neither of whom was executed. The case of Asgih, seized on account of the murder of Huddy; and governor Hamilton, of Vincennes, for specific acts of cruelty also. Hamilton was confined for a short time with rigour, and afterwards released. During the late war, marked with some cases of cold-blooded massacre on the part of our enemy, parti

cularly the one at the river Raisin, no such measure as retaliation was resorted to.

The principle assumed by the commanding general-that Arbuthnot and Ambrister, by uniting in ing in war against the United States while we were at peace with Great Britain," became outlaws and pirates and liable to suffer death," is not recognized in any code of national law. Nothing can be found in the history of civilized nations which recognizes such a principle, except a decree of the executive directory of France, during their short career of folly and madness, which declares, that neutrals found on board enemies' ships should be considered and treated as pirates.

The committee forbear to make any other remarks on the violation of the usual and accustomed forms in the punishment and conviction of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, except that even despots claiming to exercise absolute power cannot, with propriety, violate their own rules.

Having declared a court martial for the purpose of trying the prisoners, the commanding general, by his own authority, set aside the sentence of the court and substituted for that sentence his own arbitrary will. In trials involving the life of an individual, a strict adherence to form is in ordinary cases considered the best security againt oppression and injustice.

A departure from these forms is calculated to inflict a wound on the national character, and tarnish the laurels so justly ac