Among the occurrences to which I have alluded, it may be useful to particularize one case.

The schooner Catharine, an American vessel owned by citizens of the United States, was seized on the coast of Africa by the British cruiser called the Dolphin and brought into the port of New York in the summer of 1839.  Upon being brought into port, Benjamin F. Butler, esq., district attorney of the United States for the southern district of New York, appeared in the district court of the United States for that district and in the name and behalf of the United States libeled the schooner, her apparel and furniture, for a violation of the several acts of Congress passed for the suppression of the slave trade.  The schooner being arrested by the usual process in such cases and possession taken of her from the hands of the British captors by officers of the United States, the cause proceeded, and by a decree of the circuit court in December, 1840, a forfeiture was pronounced.  From this decree an appeal was taken, which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is true that in another case, that of the Tigris, of like general character, soon after arising, the then Secretary of State, on the 1st of March, 1841, informed Mr. Fox, the British minister, that “however strong and unchangeable may be the determination of this Government to punish any citizens of the United States who violate the laws against the African slave trade, it will not permit the exercise of any authority by foreign armed vessels in the execution of those laws.”

But it is evident that this general declaration did not relieve the subject from its difficulties.  Vessels of the United States found engaged in the African slave trade are guilty of piracy under the acts of Congress.  It is difficult to say that such vessels can claim any interference of the Government in their behalf, into whosesoever hands they may happen to fall, any more than vessels which should turn general pirates.  Notorious African slave traders can not claim the protection of the American character, inasmuch as they are acting in direct violation of the laws of their country and stand denounced by those laws as pirates.  In case of the seizure of such a vessel by a foreign cruiser, and of her being brought into a port of the United States, what is to be done with her?  Shall she be libeled, prosecuted, and condemned as if arrested by a cruiser of the United States?  If this is to be done, it is clear that the agency of a foreign power has been instrumental in executing the laws of the United States.  Or, on the other hand, is the vessel, with all her offenses flagrant upon her, to be released on account of the agency by which she was seized, discharged of all penalties, and left at liberty to renew her illegal and nefarious traffic?

It appeared to me that the best, if not the only, mode of avoiding these and other difficulties was by adopting such a provision as is contained in the late treaty with England.