the true doctrine of the law of nations, and feeling the competency of the government to uphold and enforce it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just rights of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of any power whatever.

The government thought no skilfully extorted promises necessary in any such cases. It asks no such pledges of any nation. If its character for ability and readiness to protect and defend its own rights and dignity is not sufficient to preserve them from violation, no interpolation of promise to respect them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be likely to afford such protection. And, as our rights and liberties depend for existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague protests are not likely to be more effectual than the Chinese method of defending their towns, by painting grotesque and hideous figures on the walls to fright away assailing foes.

My other remark on this portion of your letter is this:

Suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should not be considered as sacrificing any American rights had been appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to Great Britain, as you propose; and suppose that that government, with equal ingenuity, had appended an equivalent written declaration that it should not be considered as sacrificing any British right, how much more defined would have been the rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides? Or, in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, balanced by an exactly equivalent protest on the other?

No nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what justly belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some good reason or adequate consideration, it does make such relinquishment; and an unnecessary asseveration that it does not intend to sacrifice just rights would seem only calculated to invite aggression. Such proclamations would seem better devised for concealing weakness and apprehension, than for manifesting conscious strength and self-reliance, or for inspiring respect in others.

Toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe: "The rejection of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious question, to be avoided whenever it can be without too great a sacri

fice. Though the national faith is not actually committed, still it is more or less engaged. And there were peculiar circumstances, growing out of long-standing difficulties, which rendered an amicable arrangement of the various matters in dispute with England a subject of great national interest. But the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. Topics are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent and able Senator, for what it contains and what it omits.' This treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and necessary stipulation; and therefore, as it seems to me, its negotiation, in this particular, was unfortunate for the country."

The President directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the treaty of Washington no topics were omitted, and no topics introduced, at the mere discretion of the negotiator; that the negotiation proceeded from step to step, and from day to day, under his own immediate supervision and direction; that he himself takes the responsibility for what the treaty contains and what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the whole to the judgment of the country.

I now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by repeating once more the expression of the President's regret that you should have commenced it by your letter of the 3d of October.

It is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. He has a just appreciation of your character and your public services at home and abroad. He cannot but persuade himself that you must be aware yourself, by this time, that your letter of October was written under erroneous impressions, and that there is no foundation for the opinions respecting the treaty which it expresses; and that it would have been far better on all accounts if no such letter had been written.

I have, &c.

DANIEL WEBster.

LEWIS CASS, Esq., Late Minister of the United States at Paris.

RELATIONS WITH SPAIN.

SCHOONER "AMISTAD.”

The Chevalier d'Argaïz to Mr. Webster.

[TRANSLATION.]

Washington, April 5, 1841.

THE Chevalier d'Argaïz had the honor to receive, with the Secretary of State's note of the 3d instant, copies of two letters received at his department relative to the slave Antonio. They contain some inaccuracies, which will not, however, be indicated, as they are of no importance.

The late Secretary of State, on learning the decision of the District Court of Connecticut, informed the Chevalier d'Argaïz that the slave Antonio was at his disposal, and the Chevalier d'Argaïz, in consequence, determined to bring him to his own house, until there should be a proper opportunity to send him to Havana; and when about to carry this determination into effect, Mr. Forsyth informed him that the District Attorney of Connecticut had declared that it would be necessary for the slave Antonio to remain in that State until the cause should be brought by appeal before the Circuit Court, on account of the great value of his evidence. To this the Chevalier d'Argaïz assented, and since that time he has heard nothing of the said negro.

Circumstances have, however, been entirely altered, by the decision of the Supreme Court; and, according to the information received by the Chevalier d'Argaïz, it is very probable that the negro will not reach Havana, if he should take upon himself the charge of sending him there. For which reason, he

conceives that the government of the United States will be better able to insure his arrival at that island, where the consul of the Union may deliver him to his master.

The Chevalier d'Argaïz avails himself of this occasion to repeat to the Secretary of State the assurances of his high consideration.

HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State.

SIR,

The Chevalier d'Argaïz to Mr. Webster.

[TRANSLATION.]

Washington, April 11, 1841.

Her Majesty's vice-consul at Boston writes to me, under the date of the 7th instant, as follows:

"I have just received from the marshal of Connecticut a letter, of which this is a literal translation. Since my last letter to you, respecting the case of the negro Antonio, my conjectures have been realized, though in a different manner. At that time I supposed and feared that the self-styled friends of the Africans would solicit a writ of habeas corpus for his liberation; but they adopted another method. The jailer allowed the boy to go about the house, and assist in the labors of the kitchen and in waiting at table. The said friends availed themselves of every opportunity to preach to him about liberty, and at length induced him to go away; they placed him on board the steamboat on Monday morning last, and he went to New York. I followed him to that city, where Lewis Tappan, the leader of the Abolitionists, informed me that Antonio was in town, but that he would not be delivered to me, and that arrangements had been made for sending him elsewhere. I could not meet him myself. I regret this occurrence very much, and fear that he is beyond our reach. If, however, I should succeed in finding him anywhere, you shall receive immediate notice."

By the letters from Mr. Baldwin, of the 21st of March last, and from Mr. Andrew Judson, of the 26th of the same, which you were pleased to send me with your note of April 3d, it appeared that the negro Antonio persisted in desiring to return to Havana; from which it may be inferred that, in order to make him change that determination, seduction or deception must have been employed, perhaps by persons whom his dec

larations might have affected (comprometer); and I do not understand why the marshal of Connecticut, whom Lewis Tappan informed that the said negro was in the city, did not take any measures to engage the authorities of that place, either with the view to recover him or to have him placed on board a vessel for Havana.

In virtue of what is here stated, I have considered it my duty to make this communication to you, Sir, having no doubt that you would take the necessary measures to have the slave Antonio restored to his owner.

I repeat to you, Sir, the assurances of my distinguished consideration.

HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State.

SIR,

P. A. D'ARGAïz.

Mr. F. Webster to the Chevalier d'Argaïz.

Department of State, Washington, May 3, 1841.

In the absence of the Secretary of State, I have the honor of replying to your note of the 11th of April last, relating to the negro Antonio. I have laid it before the President, and am directed by him to say, that he regrets very much the occurrence of any event that seems at all likely to defer or delay the final and satisfactory settlement of the affair of the " Amistad."

Inquiry will be immediately directed to be made by the proper officers in order to discover the slave Antonio; and I shall have much pleasure in communicating to you the earliest information received at the department of the success of such investigation.

I avail myself of this occasion to offer you the assurances of my very high consideration.

FLETCHER WEBSTER, Acting Secretary of State.

THE CHEVALIER d'Argaïz.

The Chevalier d'Argaïz to Mr. Webster.

[TRANSLATION.]

Washington, May 29, 1841.

The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of her Catholic Majesty, has the honor, in compliance with what was agreed on with the Secretary of State in their last conference, to make known to him the conviction of the