John Quincy Adams Digital Diary

6. V:15. Dr Thornton came in this morning and shewed me his plan of a Garden for the Columbian Institute, which looks well upon paper. I returned him the Letters from Dr. Waterhouse and Josiah Quincy, which he had given me to read on Sunday— Answers to the Letters he had sent them by me, requesting their influence to obtain for him a degree of Doctor of Laws at Cambridge University. The Count de Menou came to the Office from the French Ministers, to ask for some of the papers he had lent me. I promised to return them to morrow. I had sent them to the Attorney General, to obtain his opinion of what is to be done in the case of La Jeune Eugénie. I called at Mr Calhoun’s Office, and asked for the mapping paper; for Mr Canning, which was immediately sent to my Office by his order; upon a written application 128from me. I took to Calhoun a Letter from W. Hardwick of Boston, soliciting to be admitted as a Cadet. I also mentioned the wish of my brother that his Son Thomas Boylston Adams junr. should be on the list of candidates for admission in 1823. when he will have attained the age required— Mr Calhoun advised that he should not enter until he shall be 15. and in the meantime be put to School at some Academy. The admissions are in the Month of March— I asked Calhoun, if Caldwell and Law had closed the Commission last Evening. He said they had— That he had read part of my Answers, and saw the benefit of keeping a Diary— He again adverted to the interrogatory about the memory, and said he thought it very strange that Mr Crawford whom he had told that he had expressly declined holding any conversation with Harris about that to which he was to testify, should by telling Harris of what Calhoun had said to himself in private conversation make Calhoun thus to converse with Harris indirectly. He agreed with me in thinking that Crawford’s conduct now is forced upon him by his having committed himself with Harris, by telling him according to his own misconceptions, what had passed in the President’s cabinet before— He said that he had been himself obliged to have an explanation with Crawford upon another affair— A question had arisen upon whose recommendation General Flournoy had been appointed a Commissioner to treat with the Creek Indians— Crawford had written to some one in Georgia that it was upon Calhoun’s Recommendation; when in fact it had been upon his own. Crawford had finally written a Letter making some explanatory comment upon it, but so was the fact. I called then at Mr Wirt’s Office, and had a conversation with him on the case of La jeune Eugenie. I found him still strongly averse to giving up the vessel— He said it did not appear to him to invoke at all the right of search— It was a question of fact, whether the vessel was French or American, and whether the mere hoisting of a foreign flag, or shew of foreign papers precluded all enquiry. If it did the act of Congress was of no avail, and all Legislation against the Slave-trade would be vanity. In this case the vessel was American built, and had been American property. She had an act of Francization, or French Custom House paper issued at Guadeloupe in 1819. But these papers were merely formal; issued of course on payment of a small sum of money. They were no indications of property— Now the property having been originally American why should not the French claimant be required to produce the usual evidence of transfer, a bill of sale— It was notorious that the Slave trade was now carried on by many of our Citizens under cover of Spanish and French names and papers; and if we should so readily give up this vessel, would it not have to the world the appearance of our conniving with France in these impostures? I told Mr Wirt, that it seemed to me that this question was whether in time of Peace the Commander of a public vessel of one Nation, has a right to board the merchant vessels of another. The decision of Sir William Scott, in the case of Le Louis, resolves itself into the denial of that right. I thought the right could not be maintained. By the Law of Nature no vessel has a right to board another at Sea without its consent— Our public vessels have no right to board our own merchant vessels, except as expressly authorized by Acts of Congress. But Congress cannot authorize them to board foreign vessels, even to ascertain whether they are American or not— Because the act in general cases cannot be performed without inconvenience to the party boarded. The right of one vessel to board another in time of War, arises from the State of War, it is established by the usage of Nations and is restricted to particular purposes. In time of peace there is no such usage—if there is it must be found in the books of the Law of Nations— I know of none such— With regard to the Slave-trade there can be none such, because all the Acts prohibiting it, as well our own as those of other Nations are new— Mr Wirt said he thought it would be a very dangerous principle to assume, that the mere exhibition of a flag should shield a vessel from all examination. 129He said he would write to Baltimore for the volume of Dodson’s Reports containing the decision of Sir William Scott in the case of Le Louis; and I promised to lend him the third volume of Barnewall and Alderson’s Reports, containing a late decision in the Court of King’s Bench, on a Slave trade case. I wrote a short despatch to R. Rush— Menou told me there was a person going to France with despatches from the French Minister, who offered to forward by him any despatches for me. George received a card from his Classmate R. Barnwall, who was at Brown’s Hotel, and with Johnson Hellen went and passed the Evening with him.